Neoconservatism in Canada

Caesar Augustus

An article in the latest issue of Humanist Perspectives provides an important backgrounder to recent political developments in Canada.

Written by Shadia B. Drury, and entitled "The Rise of Neoconservatism in Canada", the article amplifies many of the themes identified in my most recent posts, "A King in All But Name" and "Canada's Shameful Record Gets Worse".  As Professor Drury declares in her article's concluding statement,

"So far, there is every indication that [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper will keep his promise that Canada will be unrecognizable when he is done."

Shadia Drury has written extensively on the phenomenon that is the neoconservative movement in the US, and on the political philosophy of Leo Strauss that spawned it.  She is the Canada Research Chair in Social Justice, and the Professor in the Departments of Philosophy and Political Science at the University of Regina.

The article begins with a reminder of just how strongly Canadians have held to the notion that we are different than Americans, and how proudly we proclaim that difference.  While both countries share their ancestry with Great Britain, American culture and politics became far more belligerent and militaristic with its War of Independence.  While Canada learned and absorbed the traditions and institutions of the mother country, the US took a much more combative road.  In the revolutionary era, American Protestant Churches,

"beat the drums of war and insisted that America was the new Israel, Americans were the new chosen people, the British were the Egyptians, and King George was the Pharaoh.  Those who opposed the war were denounced as enemies of God and his chosen people."

Evocative phrases such as "shining city on a hill", "manifest destiny" and "American exceptionalism" all reinforce this idea of Americans as the chosen people in the land of a new Israel.  And the politics of America reflects this self-proclaimed and self-righteous religious and cultural pre-eminence, as the article suggests,

"The distinctively American brand of conservatism is radical, belligerent and brutally competitive...In Canada, a British style of Conservatism was allowed to thrive...[it was] interested in conserving the good while gradually reforming the bad."

Canada has come to represent the very best achievements of British liberalism.  It is therefor little wonder that envy of the US system had no prominent place in Canadian politics -- until recently.  The recent reformation of the Conservative Party of Canada has radically changed the discourse and trajectory of politics here.

Prior to the emergence of Stephen Harper's new Conservative Party, the traditional "Tories" held to the British model of governance.  They supported the British political tradition that reflected the gains won through the liberal revolutions in Europe -- that set limits on executive power, insured due process of law, defended the rights of individuals and prevented the abuse of power.  Unlike the American experience, governance in Canada did not carry the millstones of apocalyptic delusions and radical experimentation.

The ascension of Stephen Harper has changed all that.  The principles of the British Parliamentary system, which were "achieved at a great cost and over a long period of time", are now in peril.  The strategies and tactics employed by the Harper Government ape the worst of the so-called neoconservative movement.  Not content with the inherited wisdom of the past, neoconservatives are eager for radical change. Indeed, as Stephen Harper said in a recent interview, when he is finished with Canada it will be unrecognizable.

In past writings on the subject, Professor Drury has linked the rise of neoconservatism in America to two European thinkers -- Leo Strauss and Friedrich Hayek -- and says that the phobias and delusions of these men dovetailed with American ideology and propaganda in a way that was fertile to the growth of the neoconservative movement.

The philosophy of Strauss, in particular, was highly amenable to the ruling elites in America.  Strauss upheld Plato's position that the wise few should rule the masses without legal restraint.  The scholarship on Strauss reveals his teachings,

"What is needed is a wily elite ruling behind the facade of democracy.  This devious elite would partner politics with religion; it would engage the masses in a constant struggle against an existential threat to the nation and its god.  In the state of of existential dread, the democratic masses would be too pre-occupied with the external enemy to turn on their betters."     

According the Professor Drury, Strauss was severely criticized for his elitist and anti-democratic opinions.  But, as she says, "Americans tend to romanticize democracy", and politics is "characterized by hyper-democratic rhetoric".  And in America, democracy has become wary of the liberal tradition, to the extent that important elements of liberalism such as the protection of individual and minority rights have been marginalized.

And it is a paradox that the neocons' true disdain for democracy, coupled with their hyper-charged rhetoric for it, fuels a crusading foreign policy in the name of those very democratic ideals.  It was the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, you will remember, who were the primary architects of the Iraq War.  Even today the millions of casualties (the collateral damage) are justified as the price the grateful Iraqis paid for their "freedom" and democracy.  Conditions on the ground, there and in Afghanistan, would render a much different judgement, even as the decline of the American empire proceeds.    

Professor Drury asks why the neocons in America, so obviously influenced by an anti-democratic philosophy, would push the democratic mythology to such catastrophic ends.  Her answer is illuminating,

"Neocons...share [Strauss'] faith in the importance of religion, nationalism and war for the health and well-being of the political society...Religion, nationalism and the looming menace of an existential enemy are the key neoconservative ingredients in the war against liberal laxity and weakness.  Moreover, liberal niceties such as the rule of law, insistence on due process, and the limitations on executive power, can be formidable obstacles in the effort to defend society against unpredictable hazards."

And so, on now to Canada.  The undemocratic political philosophy practiced by Stephen Harper has been a subtext to his leadership for several years.  If he is not specifically Straussian in his strategies, Stephen Harper employs the philosopher's general tone and direction. He has a preoccupation with the military and nationalism, has created a strong linkage between religion and politics, and is highly secretive and controlling of the operations of government.  As Martin Lawrence wrote of Harper in his book Harperland,

"There is a harshness, a lack of humour, humanity and moderation that disregards the traditions of Parliament where all members have a right to treated as honourable." 

As I have written in earlier posts, Harper's legislative agenda supports the basic tenants of the neoconservative world view, such as his crime bill and anti-terrorism act, both deemed wholly unnecessary, if not counterproductive, in Canada today.  The Harper agenda of deep integration between Canada and the United States is moving apace. The question is why.  Why, as the Drury article asks,

"would anyone trade Canadian freedom, individuality, skepticism, and a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism, for American religiousity, mindless faith, perpetual war, and unfettered capitalism?  Why trade Canadian sobriety for a toxic concoction of American imperialism?"  

In answer to that question, we begin with the recognition that political movements develop for reasons that are complex, and in response to political motivations that are diverse; Professor Drury more specifically offers three possibilities to explain the rise of neoconservatism here in Canada.

First, as has been discussed in the many posts related to the recent 10th anniversary, 9/11 did change the world.  And liberal principles such as the rule of law, respect for individual rights, the insistence on due process and strict limitations on executive power have been deeply compromised in its aftermath.  Into this vacuum have rushed neoconservative ideals.  The article suggests that some Canadians genuinely feel that joining fortress America is the only prudent course. The recent announcement of highly integrated security initiatives between the US and Canada only reinforces that view.

Of course, advocates of this garrison mentality in Canada conveniently neglect the American culpability in stoking the resentments and inequities that brought about the blowback that was 9/11.  The aggressive war mentality that Canada has recently adopted in Afghanistan, its increasingly belligerent position toward Palestine, and its blind support for Israel whatever the costs, are out of step with mainstream opinion of the majority of our citizens.  As the Straussian philosophy suggests, however, this is a trifling matter for Harper, since our elites are endowed with a deeper insight, and will therefor ensure that the Canadian public adopts the correct attitudes.  

Second, and as has been demonstrated in America, Canadians of faith, and in particular the evangelicals, are highly amenable to the ideals of neoconservatism.  For them, religious virtue and ideology provides their preferred foundation for society.  It is well known that Stephen Harper has tapped into the evangelical and broader religious communities, and often tags his speeches with "God bless Canada". And his lock-step support for Israel can be seen in the mobilization of his christian base.

Finally, Professor Drury identifies Western Canadian alienation and the region's perceived rugged individualism as being compatible with neoconservatism.  The long-standing domination of Canada's east-centered Liberal Party has been a lightning rod for protest, and Stephen Harper's visceral hatred for liberals and liberalism is well known.  He is an ultra-partisan politician, tactically brilliant, and known to rise each day with a mission to destroy his adversaries -- and he is intent on transforming the new Conservative Party into Canada's natural ruling party.  Western alienation, and the protest movement that spawned The Reform Party was steeped in grievance, and it remains today the backbone of Harper's electoral strength.

Stephen Harper's views are consistent with all three possibilities that Professor Drury offers on the rise of neoconservatism in Canada.  He is absolutely sincere and committed to leaving Canada unrecognizable by the time he is done.

And when he recently committed Canada to adopting America's wars as our own, Harper began to make good on his threat.

By David.

-----------

Your musical accompaniment for the day: "American Woman", The Guess Who, American Woman.  Enjoy.
    

A King In All But Name

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has of late embraced the ermine and purple of royalty.  Much more on this in a moment, but first...

A recent post in the Globe and Mail disclosed some internal emails that sheds more light on the nature of Harper's skewed (and largely self-serving) notion of what it means to be Prime Minister.  The chief of social media for Health Canada asked in a Nov. 30, 2010 email,

"Since when have we started making announcements as the 'Harper Government'?"

And in another,

"Why is @healthcanada creating partisan 'press releases' and marketing them as non-partisan ministry news?"

The reply came from a senior communications adviser at Health Canada,

"This was a directive I received from PCO."

The Privy Council Office serves the prime minister as his bureaucratic "nerve centre", and works in conjunction with the Prime Minister's Office.  The PMO houses Harper's top political advisers, while his top policy advisers work out of the PCO; under Stephen Harper the two groups have come to embody his iron grip on messaging and strategy, secretive and unaccountable.  The near-total control over routine government communications requires that virtually all public comment must be pre-cleared by this "cabal".  Civil servants say that the politicizing of all government communications has greatly reduced the amount of information disclosed to the public, and that what little that is released is thoroughly sanitized.  As one civil servant is quoted as saying,

"The existence of this draconian, Orwellian, unprecedented prerequisite to clear any and all public statements that might be picked by the media reflects, in my view, a level of micromanagement in the public service, a lack of confidence, trust and respect, and a commitment to total control of the message the like of which has never been seen before."

The purposeful re-branding of the government of Canada as the "Harper Government" has met with public outrage.  The general view seems to be that "an aggressively partisan Conservative administration is trampling the admittedly grey area between party and the non-partisan public service".  The Globe article goes on to say,

"Non-partisan departmental web sites switched to a Tory-blue motif soon after the Conservatives took power in 2006, and taxpayer funded Economic Action Plan website, signs and ads have blanketed the country since 2009 in a 'whole of government' exercise that is indistinguishable from the partisan Conservative pitch."

The PCO recently posted a public notice of "Proposed Procurement" soliciting new design concepts for Government of Canada advertising in order to "develop a 'whole of government' branding approach that increases the public resonance of government messaging and information."  This initiative has drawn strenuous criticism, and as one former civil servant and communications expert said,

"There's a serious issue here and it's a deeply corrupting one for the public service.  I would say that any public servant who's involved in communications activities of that type is in breach of both the Communications Policy and the Values and Ethics Code." 

The re-branding of the government of Canada in Stephen Harper's image should be deeply troubling to Canadians.  It is easy enough to see through the charade and understand the logic that Harper is employing here.  He is intent on creating his own facts on the ground, now that his Conservatives have fortuitously seized power.  Earlier this summer, he famously said that "Conservative values are Canadians' values."  This from a politician who has yet to win a simple majority in three attempts.  That he currently occupies the primary seat of power in this country is merely a happy circumstance of our first-past-the-post electoral system. 

In point of fact, the Conservatives have never been the natural ruling party of Canada.  As John Ibbotson of the Globe recently wrote, "A majority of Canadians did not, never do, vote Conservative."  And so, while he is positioned to do so, Stephen Harper is taking every opportunity to set the table to his future advantage.

Beyond the re-branding of Canada in his own image, consider other initiatives planned by the "Harper Government".  Recent news reports (here and here) indicate that he will re-introduce anti-terrorism laws that sunset in 2007 in order to further protect Canadians (this tactic sounds ominously familiar, if you follow even casually the American experiment in "democracy").  Harper said in an interview with the CBC that the major threat to Canada "is still Islamism".  His proposal will give police the power to arrest suspects without warrant, and to detain them for up to three days without charges.  In another, he would give judges the power to jail reluctant witnesses so as to encourage their cooperation.  Such controversial law-and-order bills were off the table when Harper was in a minority position, but he now intends to push the legislative agenda of guns, prisons and increased powers to police.  In response interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said the "Harper Government" is intent on,

"taking us on a forced march to the mid-18th century with their approach to criminal justice."   

In recent months Harper has pushed at the criminal justice system in several ways.  He has, against all logic, signaled his intent to spend $billions on a massive new prison infrastructure, this at a time when crime rates are falling.  His justice minister has demanded of judges apply mandatory sentencing guidelines that even the Americans have called out-of-step.  And Harper has himself suggested that judges be more responsive to the government.

It is instructive that while Harper pushes get-tough-on-crime legislation, has demonstrated his own inclination to circumvent the rule of law.  An issue that deeply concerns Canadians is climate change; Harper has not accepted the reality of the problem, or the science behind it.  While the Harper Conservatives were still in minority, parliament passed the Climate Change Accountability Act, which called upon the government to establish regulations that would substantially reduce greenhouse emissions.

But the wily Stephen Harper chose to kill the bill in the Senate, where Conservatives are in the majority, by ensuring that the passage was debated when Liberal senators were away.  This action demonstrates our prime minister's true regard for the concept of democracy, and it shows why he is far better suited to the role of king.  Jack Layton called this action,

"One of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada.  To take power that doesn't rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is a wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country."

And in further ignoring the will of the majority of Canadians on the climate issue, Harper has

 - refused to cooperate with the Kyoto protocol signed by the previous Prime Minister Jean Chretien;

 - refused to pass new federal energy policy that would curb carbon emissions and develop new technologies;

 - subsidized and supported the production of oil from the environmentally devastating and energy intensive Alberta Oil Sands;

 - failed to support the goals of such environmental gatherings as the Copenhagen Climate Conference, resulting in Canada being labeled by some as the nation with the worst behavior.

Harper's actions to centralize absolute power and control in the PMO/PCO, his authoritarian legislative agenda, and his disdain for the democratic process all suggest that his temperament is far better suited to the royal prerogative.

Harper has returned Canada to a by-gone era with several actions to embrace the monarchy.  Most recently he restored the "Royal" name to the Canadian armed forces, an action in a former colony largely indifferent to the queen as head of state (indifferent except, of course, when Kate and William are touring).  This is part of a larger strategy to place greater emphasis on traditional symbols such as the military, ice hockey, arctic sovereignty, patriotism, and the monarchy -- see Jeffery Simpson's commentary in today's Globe and Mail.  Symbols are vital to the style of governance envisioned by Harper's Conservatives.  These symbols are necessary to advance his agenda to shift Canada's ideological centre from centre-left to centre-right.  He must do this because, despite all his bravado, Conservative values are not yet Canadian values.

Harper's long-term goal is to kill the notion of the Liberal Party as the natural governing party of government in Canada.  The liberals made Canadian independence and autonomy from Britain a key message, particularly the government of Pierre Trudeau which fostered pride in Canadian nationalism.  As a former aid to Harper said recently,

"He's trying to roll back the Trudeau revolution.  Trudeau did a lot of things to upset traditional minded [evangelical?] Canadians, introducing more socialism, making government bigger and going after traditions like the military and the monarchy."

Of course, you will know that the Liberals were displaced in the last election by Jack Layton's New Democratic Party which, by the very nature of the NDP, must give Harper uncontrolled gastric pain.

As you read the details of Harper's grand strategy, you cannot miss its parallels to the right-wing in America, with its focus on rolling back Roosevelt's New Deal, its emphasis on traditional values and its blind hatred for all things that smack (to them) of socialism.  And it should not surprise you that the neo-conservative movement is alive and well here in Canada.  To reinforce the point, Shadia Drury has an excellent and illuminating piece in the latest issue of Humanist Perspectives on this very subject.

What's really bothering me is this: Stephen Harper has put in place a plan to change the nature of my country -- a plan that is overtly partisan, slickly marketed, tightly managed, secretive, sophisticated, and devious.  It reeks of propaganda.  It is a plan well conceived, and already well established.

And, most egregious, it is a plan that has no mandate from the Canadian people.

With a four year stretch of uncontested power ahead of him, I fear Stephen Harper will do tremendous damage to Canada.

By David.

-----------

Your musical accompaniment for the day: Dazed and Confused, Led Zeppelin; Led Zeppelin I.  Enjoy.

Canada's Shameful Record Getting Worse

 

A post in today's New York Times tells us that the Obama administration hopes to avert the issue of Palestinian statehood that is scheduled to come to the floor of the UN when world leaders gather at the General Assembly beginning later this month.

Obama hopes that a new round of peace negotiations will forestall the fallout the administration's certain veto of the resolution will generate.

According to the Times' article, efforts to head off the Palestinian drive have continued through the summer, but have become more urgent as the vote looms.  These efforts included direct intervention by David M. Hale, the administration's new special envoy, and by Dennis Ross, the president's Middle East advisor on the National Security Council. In an escalation of this initiative, the State Department recently issued a formal diplomatic message to more than 70 countries urging them to oppose any unilateral moves by the Palestinians at the United Nations.  As the Times' article noted,

"The message, delivered by American ambassadors to their diplomatic counterparts in those countries, argued that a vote would destabilize the region and undermine peace efforts, though those are, at least for now, moribund." 

The dilemma for the Obama administration is that it does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the status of the Palestinians from nonvoting observer "entity" to nonvoting observer "state".  The change, as the Times notes, would pave the way for the Palestinians to join dozens of United Nations bodies and conventions, and it would strengthen their ability to pursue cases against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

"Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the United States and only a handful of other nations in opposition. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a wave of anger could sweep the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world at a time when the region is already in tumult.  President Obama would be put in the position of threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians or risk alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States."

While it appears that the Obama administration is at least aware of the dilemma it now faces, the outcome is hardly in doubt.  The returning reader to this site (yes, there are a few of you kind souls) will recall my post last month about President Obama titled "Hoisted by His Own Petard" -- it is apropos to recall that post in the context of this bit of new drama.  Obama has courted AIPAC shamelessly and, with it, the substantial cache of American Jewish campaign donations, and he has bowed and scraped before Bibi Netanyahu in a manner that emasculates the supposed power of the United States of America. So while Obama once fashioned himself as the standard-bearer of human rights and democracy around the world including, one would assume, the Palestinians, he seems to have lost interest in this outcome -- just one of his many reversals.

And so, return now to the quotation above from the Times' article that the General Assembly vote would leave America "and only a handful of other nations" in opposition.  It is a certainty that among that group we will find Canada...

Unlike President Obama, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper suffers not the slightest angst on this issue -- he has openly, forcefully and repeatedly committed to defending the interests of Israel, "whatever the costs".  In so doing, he has set out to become the most fervent defender of Israeli actions in the community of nations.  At the Deauville G8 summit, for example, he blocked any reference in the final communique to a return to the pre-1967 borders as a condition for peace -- this, despite president Obama's stated support for it (a position from which he ultimately backed away under withering condemnation by Israel and AIPAC).

Harper defended the 2006 Israeli campaign in Lebanon that killed almost a thousand Lebanese civilians, an unprovoked military action that resulted in the condemnation of Israel by the world community. In fact, from the outset of the conflict, he defended Israel's "right to exist" and described the military campaign as a "measured" response. He blamed Hezbollah for all the civilian deaths, and he asserted that Hezbollah's objective is to destroy Israel.

When the Gaza flotilla was brutally attacked by the Israeli military, it just so happened that Benjamin Netanyahu was meeting with Stephen Harper.  Our Prime Minister did not waste the opportunity to fully endorse the criminal actions by the Israelis, and even thought it right that Israel should lead any investigation into the affair.

Harper's blinding fealty to Israel has in turn puzzled, infuriated and delighted observers of the Canadian scene, many of whom have sought to explain this apparent departure from what is generally agreed to be our traditional even-handed and consensus-based foreign policy.  The widely held view is that Harper's slavish support for Israel is driven by ethnic politics.  A former Canadian diplomat is reported to have told a Liberal Party conference that,

"the scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada meant selling out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice."

As Yves Engler has noted, however, the numbers don't add up.  He points out that just over 1% of the Canadian population is identified as Jewish.  From the 2006 Canadian census, according to Engler, Jews were the 25th largest group defined by ethnic origin, and only a handful of electoral ridings have a significant concentration of Jews.

As in America, Jews in Canada are politically engaged, are well represented in positions of influence and are a relatively prosperous minority group.  As is also the case in the US, voting patterns suggest that few Canadian Jews cast their ballots based on Ottawa's policy towards Israel, and there may actually exist an inverse relationship to Jewish support.  The reality is that pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists have influence because they operate within a favorable political climate -- as Engler says, "they are pushing against an open door."  

But there was a time when conditions were not so favorable, when Canada did not reflexively side with the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby.  As Engler notes,

"In 1979, at the instigation of Israeli PM Menachem Begin, short-lived Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clark announced plans to relocate the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the city.  Arab threats of economic sanction pushed the CEOs of Bell Canada, Royal Bank, ATCO and Bombardier, which all had important contracts in the region, to lobby Clark against making the move.  And embarrassed federal government backtracked, more worried about an important sector of corporate power than the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby."

There is another motivator that better accounts for Stephen Harper's Israel first, "whatever the costs" policy -- it has been suggested that it has to do with mobilizing his rightwing evangelical base.  As in the US, Zionism is particularly strong among evangelicals who believe that the return of the Jews to Israel will hasten the second coming of Christ and the Apocalypse.  It was reported that a Conservative member of parliament recently gave a speech at a major Christian Zionist event in Toronto -- the MP for Essex delivered greetings from Prime Minister Harper, and said, 

"The creation of the state of Israel fulfills God's promise in Deuteronomy to gather the Jewish people from all corners of the world."

Engler notes that about 10 percent of Canadians identify as evangelicals (including a number of MPs in the government).  The president of the rightwing Canadian Centre for Policy Studies was quite explicit when he said, 

"The Jewish community in Canada is 380,000 strong; the evangelical community is 3.5 million.  The real support base for Israel is Christians."

Stephen Harper is himself a devout evangelical Christian, the third to lead the Canadian right (all from Alberta), and the first to attain national power.  He is renown for his absolute control over government messaging, and has thus maintained a relatively low public profile on the issue of evangelicals.  But the religious right in Canada know that Harper is one of their own -- the Founder of Canada's premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street proclaimed "We've got a born-again prime minister!".  They see Harper as an image-savvy evangelical who will keep his signals to them under the radar, but it is clear that his faith will be translated into policies that will remake the fabric of the country -- and the evangelical influence is already strongly felt in Ottawa.

And so with respect to the pending UN resolution on Palestinian statehood, it is no surprise that Canada has already signaled its intent to reject any such outcome. Given its deep commitment to evangelical Christians, the Harper government is quite prepared to accept all criticism for its "slavish" support for Israel, and for turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinian people.  In a recent interview with a leading Mideast analyst, Rami Khouri, our reputation as a country that practiced "a sense of decency and fairness in its foreign policy" is increasingly being called into question.  Khouri had this to say,

"I think the critical point for any Western government -- Canadian, American, British -- is to differentiate between supporting the security of Israel and opposing the colonization policies of Israel.  Israel within its 1967 boarders is a phenomenon the world accepts, even the Arabs.

Any real friend of Israel should tell Israel, 'we support you, your security but we don't support what you're doing'."

Canada's reputation, as Rami Khouri says, is that of a fair and honest broker.  Under Stephen Harper's leadership of the Conservative Party, that reputation -- earned or not -- will suffer greatly, and the country will continue to veer hard to the right.  To appease his evangelical base, Harper will perpetuate the misery of millions of Palestinians, as we forfeit any semblance of moral standing in the world.

It is a frightening prospect that Stephen Harper now has a full four years to govern -- he is virtually unopposed in his power to implement his will and prerogative.

Postscript.  The power of the Jewish Lobby in the US has been well documented by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.  Their widely cited paper, as you may recall, set off a fire-storm of protest and recrimination by AIPAC and its operatives -- a sure sign that the authors were on to something.  If you haven't read the paper, do so this very minute.  (Read also the book by Yves Engler, Canada and Israel, referenced below.)  Pat Buchanan famously called Congress "Israeli occupied territory", and it is well known that senators and representatives who don't rigorously uphold the interests of Israel will be targeted for elimination in the next electoral cycle.  And every presidential hopeful must make a pilgrimage to the national AIPAC convention to publicly acknowledge and proclaim their fealty to the Jewish state, often to the detriment of their own country.

There is something terribly wrong with a political system that funds another country to the tune of $3 billion annually, and then meekly allows that country to spy against it repeatedly.  The interests of America and Israel are not the same (nor are the interests of Canada and Israel the same), yet politicians here in North America proclaim Israel first, "whatever the costs".

And then, of course, there's the evangelicals. Upon that base rests the power of the Jewish Lobby.  In America, and now increasingly in Canada, the separation of church and state is disintegrating, and with it the last vestiges of democratic liberalism.

Update.  The smile is fading from the smug countenance of Bibi Netanyahu.  And it puts me in mind of the variously attributed quotation,

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

It seems liberty may be returning to Israel.  Since July 14th, when an impromptu tent city sprang up in protest of worsening social issues, dissent in Israel has become a growth industry.  It was reported by TheRealNewsNetwork that on Saturday almost half a million Israelis took to the streets to denounce the government.

From the streets of Tel Aviv, here is a sampling of comments,

"The people demand social justice.  Our Israel demands a change in the set of priorities of its government."

"This summer we woke up and refused to keep going with our eyes closed toward the abyss."

"The circle will keep going until it breaks through the government's walls and it starts to comply with our demands.  We demand to see our government members losing sleep and losing weight as a result of the burden of responsibility on their shoulders."

"This protest will continue until the government resigns and we have new elections."

As the protests have grown, Bibi has remained silent.  With the huge demonstration of dissent on Saturday, he was forced to appoint a special committee to "look into" the issues.  This has done nothing to placate the protesters, who have called the chairman of the committee,

Bibi's man...he was sent by Bibi so Bibi can keep his hands clean without doing anything."

It seems that when government makes a commitment to corporatism and austerity, the result can be the kind of mass public protest and dissent we are now witnessing in Israel.  These events should cheer activists in North America, and may even give pause to the ideologues on the right as they craft their political strategies.

-----------

Some recent news reports related to the main post.  The September 13 edition of Haaretz quotes Obama as saying that the US will veto the Palestinian motion for statehood because its approval would be "counterproductive".  Go here, here and here for additional articles from the region on the Palestinian movement for statehood.

And the Prime Minister of Turkey spoke out against Israel's attack on the Gaza aid flotilla; he attached the phrase "Acting as advocates for Israel" to those who remain uncritical.  He also said that he would refer the position and actions of Israel to the Hague for prosecution.

By David.

-----------

A Commentary on "Canada and Israel".

Our reputation is darker than most know -- our foreign policy more checkered than generally understood.  A book by Yves Engler brings some much needed and perhaps, shocking, clarity to Canada's real role in the world.

Below is a commentary on Engler's work by Ali Mustafa.

Countless books have been written to date on the Israel/Palestine question, exploring everything from the origins of the conflict and current obstacles to peace, to the role of the major world powers involved and vested interests at stake.  But few books have yet to examine in any depth the nature of Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East, much less call into question the key political, economic, and ideological forces at play. Yves Engler’s Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid not only succeeds on both counts but manages to do so with convincing authority, putting to rest the popular myth that Canada is, or has ever been, an ‘honest broker’ in the region.

Far from merely yet another account of the ongoing conflict or a historical survey of Zionism -- both of which it no doubt is -- what distinguishes this book from countless others in the field is its decided focus to put Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East, and therefore the issue of Canadian complicity, front and center in the debate. Meticulously researched and comprehensive in scope, scarcely before has Canada’s historically one-sided support for Israel and the underlying geo-strategic motives behind it been so systemically documented in a single book.

Engler’s overall analysis in the book is informed by the understanding of Israel as an ‘apartheid state’, which, according to the author, represents the antithesis of contemporary Canadian values and the worst of this country’s own dark colonial past.  About the ‘Nakba’ or the ethnic cleansing of over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes by Zionist militias in 1948, upon which that state of Israel was founded, Engler writes,

“This was the first major act of apartheid waged against Palestinians. Refusing to allow them to return is an ongoing form of apartheid.”  

But the Nakba was only the ‘original sin’; under international law Israel satisfies virtually all of the central criteria of an apartheid state, including exclusive land ownership laws, a vast matrix of military checkpoints and separate ‘Jewish only’ settlements, and the ‘apartheid’ wall in the West Bank highlight only the most flagrant examples of institutionalized racism found in Israel today.

Canadian ties to Zionism are not only well rooted in this country’s past but as old as Canada itself, Engler argues.  “Zionism’s roots are Christian, not Jewish,” he writes.  Paying careful attention to historical accuracy, Engler outlines in detail the rise of Christian Zionism in Europe and all its major players.  Although ‘biblical literalism’ provided the basic impetus for the emergence of Christian Zionism in Europe, Canada’s support for Zionism was originally spurred by loyalty to its closest ally Great Britain, the major world power and key patron of a ‘Jewish homeland’ in historic Palestine throughout much of the 20th century.

When UN Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine passed in 1947, Canada faithfully supported the plan – despite the fact that, at the time, Jews in Palestine comprised only 30% of the population but would be awarded over 55% of the land.  Former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, then one of Canada’s senior UN representatives, was instrumental in seeing the partition plan come to fruition.  Contrary to popular belief, Engler argues, Canada’s support for the partition plan was due much less to the influence of a powerful Zionist lobby as to the legacy of Western anti-Semitism.  As Engler writes,

“The way to understand Jewish Zionist lobbying is that it pressed against an almost open door […] the anti-Semitism underlying Canada’s ‘none is too many’ policy towards Jewish refugees explains support for Israel.”

But old-fashioned geopolitics offers a far more precise explanation of Canada’s support for the creation of the state of Israel.  According to the author, in order for Canada to avoid a major diplomatic rift between its two major allies at the time, Britain and the US, securing a deal that would satisfy the interests of both parties was paramount. Following the fallout of World War II, whereupon the US supplanted Britain as the new global hegemon, Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East gradually shifted towards the American sphere of influence. Under the new geopolitical order, Israel would come to represent a vital strategic asset of US imperial interests in the world, essentially serving as a Western colonial outpost in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East.

Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and much of the Syrian Golan Heights since 1967 has done little to change the nature Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East. Already deep ideological, economic, and military ties between Canada and Israel have only grown more pronounced over time.  The two countries signed the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA) in 1997, Canada’s first ever free trade agreement outside of the Western Hemisphere.  But Canada’s support for Israel also assumes much more nuanced forms, although no less harmful in effect, Engler argues. For example, the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) in Canada helped found ‘Canada Park’, an Israeli national park built atop destroyed Palestinian villages in the illegally occupied West Bank.  Canadian aid and charitable funds to Israel have a long history of subsidizing illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, among various other violations of international law.

Neither should Canada’s reflexive, one-sided support for Israel today be seen in any way as an aberration; instead, Engler insists, it must be understood in the context of a long and consistent historical continuum of Canadian foreign policy interests in the Middle East -- regardless of which political party happens to be in power.  Carefully consulting the historical record, Engler leaves little doubt about the overall continuity of Canada’s support for Israel, from both the so-called ‘Right’ and ‘Left’ of the political spectrum.  Whether it is the Liberal Party of Paul Martin or the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper, the book dismantles not only Canada’s ‘peacekeeping myth’ but also the notion of even remote debate or political variety concerning key foreign policy issues in this country.  As Engler writes,

“The trajectory of this country’s foreign policy has been clear: The culmination of six decades of one-sided support, and two years into the Stephen Harper government, Canada was (at least diplomatically) the most pro-Israel country in the world.”

The author explains how under the familiar banner of ‘anti-Semitism’, the historical memory of the Holocaust has been shamefully manipulated by Canadian politicians and Zionist lobby groups alike as a means to shield Israel from legitimate criticism.  Of course, such a clearly harmful and morally bankrupt foreign policy, stubbornly sustained for so long, without logical pretext, cannot survive unopposed forever.  While Engler admits that the broader, grassroots Left has made significant strides in recent years to combat the widespread abuse of anti-Semitism for political gain and the growing ties between Canada and Israel in general, it remains a long and uphill struggle.

Although Engler flatly rejects the baseless charges of anti-Semitism routinely made against vocal critics of Israel such as, for example, the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), he claims that the plight of Palestinians receives much more international attention than do the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, or Tibet, for that matter. “The point of our protest must not just be Palestinian suffering but rather Canadian complicity with that suffering,” Engler argues. He goes on to write,

“By not focusing on Canada’s responsibility for the conflict Palestinian solidarity activists have opened themselves up to attacks regarding their single-minded devotion to Israel’s crimes. To undercut this self-serving argument, which is often an insinuation of anti-Semitism, it is important to make our critique of Canadian foreign policy more explicit.”

Here Engler is uncharacteristically a little careless, unwittingly playing into the hands of the very same political forces whose aims he so skillfully and thoroughly exposes throughout the book.  In reality, Palestine solidarity activists such as those who organize IAW are no more blameworthy for giving specific attention to the Israel/Palestine question than organizers of Congo Awareness Week are for focusing on the DRC or the Canada Haiti Action Network for focusing on Haiti – both of which, it might be added, showcase clear examples of Canadian complicity.  Any activist, among whom I might count Engler, knows that organizers simply cannot do everything.  They are overworked, outstretched, and under-resourced; the fact that events such as those mentioned above even happen at all is an achievement in itself.  So long, I think, as our activism remains rooted in a universal standard of social justice, and we strive wherever possible to highlight common links and build genuine solidarity between various struggles in Canada and abroad, it is possible to take up a given cause without necessarily compromising the integrity of our aims or falling victim to narrow parochialism.

Regarding the growth of Palestine solidarity in Canada in recent years, and the level of international attention surrounding it, Engler fails to acknowledge the degree to which Palestinians themselves have made it possible – both through their own sustained resistance, and practical appeals to international solidarity in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. He argues that it has been largely the belligerence of Israel and, most recently, the brutal military assault on Gaza in 2008/2009 that has caused ordinary Canadians to begin to see Israel for what it is and question Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East, resulting in the largest Palestine solidarity demonstrations in this country’s history. But Israel has always been openly belligerent – this is nothing new. In fact, it has been the growth of the Palestine solidarity movement across Canada – led by Palestinians – that has put the Israel/Palestine question on the political agenda like never before, and channeled these large demonstrations into part of an organized campaign (as opposed to short-lived expressions of outrage). This is an unintentional, yet critical oversight – one that puts far too much emphasis on Israel itself as a measure of public opinion.

But make no mistake, Canada is a real actor in this book. While the trajectory of Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East has been more or less consistent over the past six decades, Engler is sure to carefully put Canada’s aims in their unique historical context. There is no grand plot or shadow Zionist lobby manipulating Canadian foreign policy from afar (i.e. Walt and Mearsheimer), nor is Canada merely subordinated to the whims of US imperial interests; instead Canada is authentically portrayed as a power in its own right, equipped with its own geopolitical aims and interests. Engler’s mistrust of Canada’s motives in the Middle East is not borne out of cynicism or spite but rather a clear historical pattern of harmful Canadian intervention abroad. No doubt, as someone who admittedly began his career as a writer by studying Canada’s shameful role in Haiti, he is surely well versed in the ugly side of this country’s foreign policy tradition elsewhere in the world.

The scope and breadth of the book is initially quite daunting and even a little overwhelming, leaving virtually no historical fact or detail uncovered, yet avoids becoming at all pedantic or trivial in outlook. Each chapter builds fittingly upon the one prior to create a comprehensive historical narrative; anyone still not convinced after reading this book of Canada’s one-sided support for Israel and the fundamental need to change the nature of this country’s foreign policy may well never be swayed. For such a relatively short book (in total, approximately 150 pages) it is surprising just how much history is covered in this gem of a resource. Written in a simple, lucid style, Engler allows the facts to speak for themselves, yet does not shy away from announcing exactly where he stands.

Canadians can no longer plead ignorance of what is being done abroad in their name. This book not only gives its readers the tools to understand Canadian complicity in Israeli apartheid, but in doing so, puts the onus on us to take action in order hold our own government to account. Engler’s proposed solution is as blunt and straightforward as his prose; not wasting words, he writes, “Only when Canadians understand the reality of Israel, when they learn that their government takes the side of Israel despite its glaring human rights violations, will change be possible.”

According to the author, supporting the growing BDS campaign and targeting all Canadian institutions with any political, financial, or military ties to Israel is a good way to begin to take meaningful action. Engler also makes a few recommendations of his own, including: halting all Canadian weapons sales to Israel, revoking the JNF’s charitable status in Canada, and boycotting Chapters/Indigo (which the author himself has done with this very book). Canada’s foreign policy history in the Middle East and its one-sided support for Israel are rife with hypocrisy, and this book is a welcome remedy to it.

-----------

Your musical accompaniment for the day: Villa Lobos, Suite Populaire Bresilienne; Norbert Kraft, Villa Lobos: Music for Solo Guitar.  Enjoy.

The Two-Tiered Rule of Law

In his article today in OpEdNews Craig Paul Roberts refers to several egregious actions by law enforcement authorities in the US to make his point that "In America The Rule of Law Is Vacated".  Just a few recent but ripe examples to prove the larger point.  

Well, of course the rule of law is vacated, as it is increasingly in many other countries around the world.  We'll go beyond the US borders in a minute, but first a summary of the Roberts article.

I was immediately drawn into the piece by the opening line that cited the Gibson Guitar Company as one of the targets of unwarranted police action.  I've known Gibson since I was 12 years old (a long long time ago) from when I first began to play.  What could they possibly have done?  Turns out the company broke no law -- at least no American law -- but they did contravene one in the books in India.  Turns out the Indians launched no complaint but, according to Roberts the feds took it upon themselves "to both interpret and to enforce on US citizens the laws of India".  The feds claim that Gibson's use of wood from India in its guitars is illegal, because "the wood was not finished by Indian workers." 

Roberts says that this is clearly not India's interpretation of the law, as it allowed the exportation of the unfinished materials.  He goes on to say,

"Perhaps the feds are trying to force more layoffs of US workers and their replacements by H-1B foreign workers.  Gibson can solve its problem by firing its Tennessee work force and hiring Indian citizens on H-1B work visas."

You might ask why a blog devoted to corporate abuse would shed a tear for any corporation.  Well, for starters, they make fucking guitars fer chrissakes!  Its not like they're armaments manufacturers -- you'll never see the likes of Boeing, Bushmaster, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon or United Technologies clipped for not breaking an American law.  No, these poor buggers make musical instruments, and you know that's an industry that's gotta be closely monitored!

It turns out Gibson is being investigated for violating something called the Lacey Act, which requires importing companies to -- among other things -- purchase legally harvested wood and follow the environmental laws of the producing countries regardless of corruption or lack of enforcement.  Now, Gibson is not blameless as a corporation, and has recently been ranked the 5th worst place to work according to glassdoor.com.  It does appear, however, that charges of politicization can be linked in this instance to the enforcement of the Lacy Act.  It seems that the charges followed Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz's criticism of the federal government, and it was later revealed that Juszkiewicz had donated more to the Republicans during the previous election cycle, whereas the CEO of the C.F. Martin & Company (a major competitor to Gibson) had supported Democratic candidates. Yet, Martin was not targeted despite reportedly using the same wood products.  I know what you're thinking, this couldn't possibly be politically motivated.

If this seems a little arcane, I apologize for the brief digression, but I was interested in exploring some details not provided in the Roberts article.  In that piece he moves on from Gibson to another trivial enforcement of another small corporate entity, as well as cases of innocent individuals murdered in the course of FBI raids.  The examples of this kind of action (without any subsequent sanction or redress by government) betrays an utter lawlessness in the American system that is at the heart of Roberts' article.  As he says.

"I have seen studies that show that police actually commit more acts of violence against the public than do criminals, which raises an interesting question: Are police a greater threat to the public than are criminals?  On Yahoo I just searched "police brutality" and up came 4,840,000 results."

Stop for a moment and ponder this: the police commit more violent acts than do criminals, but the overwhelming criminal actions of corporate crime then dwarfs even police actions.  Go to Corporate Crime Reporter and its link for Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime. 

But where Roberts really wants to go in his commentary is to compare and contrast his examples of so-called law enforcement with the travesty of justice that is Dick Cheney.  It coincides with Darth Vader's just released memoir, rightly panned in the media as another example of revisionist writing and a sad attempt to burnish an image destined for history's trash heap.  Roberts repeats Cheney's claim that breaking laws against torture, for example, "is the right thing to do".  And then Roberts asks,

"why does Cheney think the office of the Vice President, President, or Attorney General has the power to "authorize" breaking a law?  Our vaunted "rule of law" disappears if federal officials can authorize breaking laws."

I can answer his question.  Perhaps you can recall that President Nixon famously said to David Frost "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."  It so happens that Dick Cheney worked for Nixon, and felt to his very core that he must right the wrongs done to, and the limitations imposed on, the office of the presidency in the aftermath of Nixon's resignation.  Cheney dedicated himself to the task of retaking that lost ground.  A glorious opportunity to do so presented itself when the dimwit George Bush tasked Cheney with finding a Vice President, a position he happily took for himself.

And Cheney certainly had success in recovering that lost ground.  The power of the office of the presidency has grown substantially and steadily through the 20th century through to today, and Cheney is recognized for his part.

As for how Dick Cheney remains a free man -- another burning question for Roberts -- I might ask how Henry Kissinger remains free, or Bill Clinton, or George W Bush or George HW Bush or any of the hundreds and thousands of their officials who would be tried for war crimes were the statutes actually enforced.  These men (women in this group, too, and that means you Madeline, Hillary and Condoleeza, just for starters) are war criminals and should be held to account.  They will not be, however, at least in the United States, because to do so would curtail the freedom of action that each new administration feels it must have -- to do so would undermine the illusion of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism that provides some minimal cover for continued criminal actions by successive US governments.

Barack Obama famously said that he chose to look forward, and not back on all the Bush administration misdeeds (such as the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq).  He wished to avoid what he called "partisan rancor" in the aftermath of Bush.  And look how that strategy has rewarded him in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps Iran -- he in his turn will escape the scrutiny of his successor for war crimes, and will live a life of honor and prestige as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient.  He may, however, like Kissinger and Bush and Cheney, be limited in his ability to travel for fear of prosecution. 

Roberts' view is correct -- America is lawless from the top down.  He ends the commentary this way,

In America we have the rule of law -- only the law is not applied to banksters and members of the executive branch, but, as Greenwald says, is only applied to 'ordinary citizens and other nations' (unfriendly) rulers.'

A country this utterly corrupt is certainly no 'light unto the world.'          

And this brings us, dear and patient reader, to my commentary on the nature of the two-tiered justice system beyond America's borders.

The term "two-tier", of course, reflects the mostly favourable outcomes won by those with power and the generally less favourable outcomes handed down to those without power, economic and otherwise.  Roberts' article does a good job of showing that inequities exist, and that they are based on a class-related structure of rich and poor, elite and common, the connected and the disenfranchised.

And my insight to his argument is that these inequities in the justice system reflect the broader condition of inequality in society as a whole.  As the gap in wealth distribution widens ever further -- as it is in the US, Canada and Britain -- it will be mirrored by the two-tiered nature of the justice system.  The elite are feeling both a growing sense of entitlement as this gulf widens, but also a growing sense of fear as the masses are left to fight for its diminishing share.  Trends support this condition beyond the US, into Canada and Britain, where Google searches of "police brutality" yield similar results to those reported by Roberts for America.  This does not, by the way, preclude or ignore the growing disparities elsewhere in the world, as the summer of discontent in Europe, Israel and Greece dramatically demonstrates.

Here in Canada, the Harper government has embarked on a draconian program of changes to the criminal code that that have been roundly denounced as being well out of step with trends in other countries.  His government plans to spend $billions on the construction of new prisons even as rates of crime continue to fall, and his justice minister has recently put forward tough new mandatory sentencing guidelines for judges that has caused considerable pushback from the legal community.  He has also suggested that judges need to be more pliant and responsive to the government, a direct contradiction to the universal standard of an independent judiciary.

Then, of course, there is the festering sore that is the Toronto G20, where a thousand protesters were arrested and detained without due process, in what the Ontario Ombudsman described as the "single greatest abuse of civil liberties in Canada's history", where the government conferred wartime powers on the police in peacetime. Police-state tactics were used against lawful public protest, at a cost of $millions.  And still, the government has stonewalled any serious investigation into the methods and accountability related to this most sorry event in Canadian history.

As in the US, the tactics and budgets of most Canadian metropolitan police forces are being beefed up to near military standards, and our own internal security apparatus is growing at an alarming rate.  One might ask Mr. Harper what kind of trouble he is expecting.  We can readily see the answer, as the wealth gap increases and greater austerity measures are planned -- just prudent planning on his part to the inevitable response of the dispossessed. 

Without extending this post beyond a reasonable attention-span (too late!) the same story can be told of Britain.  The recent rioting in and around London has generated considerable commentary.  It is a country that is heavily monitored, and where an underclass has been festering for many years.  The recent Conservative government initiatives to impose austerity (there's that word again) and the general police-state approach to internal security, are sure to find their ultimate outcome in renewed street demonstrations and rioting.

One question does still bother me, though, while we're on the subject of two-tiered justice systems; referring to a high-profile event in Britain, what was the outcome of the public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes in July of 2005?

I understand the chief of police was very sorry.

Postscript.  To put an exclamation point on the de Menezes murder, he was shot three times point-blank in the head by police while he was handcuffed and kneeling on a train station platform.  He was wrongfully targeted, a casualty of racial profiling, and he was executed in public while in police custody.  After the incident, the Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said he could only offer his deep apology, but then went on to say that further shootings could happen and defended the shoot-to-kill orders then in place.  No one was ever charged, least of all the officer who executed Charles Jean de Menezes.

As I've stated above, the two-tier justice system that exists in America, Canada and Britain mirrors the economic stratification that has emerged there.  It will likely expand as a response to public unrest growing out of the inequities that are sure to arise from a new round of government-imposed austerity measures.

This notion of a two-tiered system of justice could be extended, at some considerable length, to a discussion of the inequity between countries.  The acts of war committed by America and its Nato allies have been well documented, but the relative silence of the world community to these atrocities shows that the Golden Rule of money and power holds as much sway internationally as it does domestically.

Update.  The inequity between countries was highlighted in Friday's Washington Post, and an excerpt from Dana Priest's new book.  A secret force created in the aftermath of 9/11 has grown considerably in both size and actionable power.  The quotation from a member of this force summed up very well the state of perpetual war in which the United States is now engaged,

"We're the dark matter.  We're the force that orders the universe but can't be seen." 

An interesting turn of phrase, that, dark matter.  It is clear that the growth of this force is mirrored by the growth in size and execution of internal security services in most countries around the world, including Canada.  Two-tiers of justice for the haves and the have-nots, waged on two fronts, domestic and international.

Update No. 2. I came across anteresting post long after my first commentary.  This from the night of the presidential speech on jobs (September 8).  Who but Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz was seen sitting as an invited guest of John Boehner as Obama delivered his tepid response to the employment issue.

By David.

-----------

Your musical accompaniment for the day:  Mediterranean Sundance, by Al DiMeola, from Elegant Gypsy.  Enjoy.

His True Legacy Comes From Right Action

The planned (and now, postponed) dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr monument in DC presents another opportunity to reflect on the continued deterioration of the American social fabric which, as I suggested in an earlier post, may soon become FUBAR, although it is perhaps more polite to say something like "ripped asunder".

In a recent commentary by Cornel West of Princeton, the prophetic words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel resonated with me: "The whole future of America depends on the impact and influence of Dr. King."  These words were spoken while Dr. King was alive.  In the 43 years since his assassination, the future of America has grown considerably darker, and its trajectory may very well be linked to a waning of Dr. King's impact and influence.  Professor West writes:

"King weeps from his grave.  He never confused substance with symbolism.  He never conflated a flesh and blood sacrifice with a stone and mortar edifice.  We rightly celebrate his substance and sacrifice because he loved us all so deeply.  Let us not remain satisfied with symbolism because we too often fear the challenge he embraced."

And, as I've written in previous posts, President Obama embraced the symbolism of Dr. King mainly because it was expedient and highly effective.  Others remain satisfied with mere symbolism because it is difficult to do otherwise, as it is also profitable and comfortable.  As I've also written recently, and affirmed by West in his piece, the age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling Dr. King's legacy,

"Instead of articulating a radical democratic vision and fighting for homeowners, workers and poor people in the form of mortgage relief, jobs and investment in education, infrastructure and housiing, the administration gave us bailouts for banks, record profits for Wall Street and giant budget cuts on the backs of the vulnerable."

Professor West goes on to say,

"The absence of a King-worthy narrative to reinvigorate poor and working people has enabled right-wing populists to seize the moment with credible claims about government corruption and ridiculous claims about tax cuts' stimulating growth.  This right-wing threat is a catastrophic response to King's catastrophes (militarism, racism and poverty); its agenda would lead to hellish conditions for most Americans."

The catastrophes enumerated by West are consistent with the "triple evils" that King himself identified -- poverty, injustice and war.  West suggests that King's response to this crisis would be found in one word -- revolution.  As I have said in my own earlier posts, Dr. King would take to the streets in opposition to the policies of Bush, and now, those of Obama.  West affirms this and says,

"A revolution in our priorities, a re-evaluation of our values, a reinvigoration of our public life and a fundamental transformation of our way of thinking and living that promotes a transfer of power from oligarchs and plutocrats to everyday people and ordinary citizens."

This is unlikely, of course, because it is so damned difficult, and because the right-wing has so thoroughly occupied the high ground on the battle field.  Unlikely, too, because the singular transformational figure of our time, Barack Obama, has shown himself to be a manchurian candidate for the monied class -- he has corrupted the language and oratory and symbolism of Dr. King in the service of his own political agenda.  Unlikely, too, because it appears the future of America is plummeting with the falling trajectory of Dr. King's impact and influence.  

The best legacy to Martin Luther King Jr is to be found in right action, and not in stone monuments.

This sentiment is affirmed in the comments of Michael Eric Dyson, in which he described how Dr. King employed what Dyson calls his "automortality" -- the narration of his own death.  Dyson says that King ingeniously used the inevitability of his own death to motivate and mobilize his community, to use that certain death to win converts into his army of moral opposition to America's failure to be truly democratic.  Dyson quotes from a King sermon, in which he says that he does not want to be remembered for his Nobel Peace Prize or the other numerous awards he received, but rather that he was on the right side of peace, on the right side of the war.  Dyson says that King anticipated his death in order that others would,

"look at its inevitability, transform its perception and alter and shape how people should view his life once he was there longer here."

So, even as King acknowledged that he "might not get to the promised land", he did nevertheless have a clear idea about how he should be remembered, based on the principles for which he stood.

And today, with the monument to him now unveiled, many people are finding it an appropriate time to consider him again.  And many people are writing about it.  Congressman John Lewis did so in the Washington Post on Saturday.  He said that if Dr. King were alive today he would be amazed that such a monument was erected for him, as he would be gratified that an african-American was elected as president.  Lewis also agreed that Dr. King would say that much more needs to be done, saying,

"His dream was about building a society based on simple justice that values the dignity and worth of every human being.  That effort is the true legacy of King's dream.  Were he alive today, it is telling that his message would still be essentially the same.  It is troubling that unemployment is so high -- indeed, far higher than it was in 1963 -- and that we are so caught up in details of deficits and debt ceilings that we question whether government has any moral duty to serve the poor, help feed the hungry and assist the sick.  Today, Dr. King would still be asking questions that reveal the moral meaning of our policies.  And he would still challenge our leaders to answer those questions -- and to act on their beliefs."

I take Congressman Lewis' comments as especially relevant, as he came up through the struggles of the civil rights movement with Dr. King.  His comments about what Martin Luther King might say today are therefore authoritative.  He went on to say that Dr. King would likely tell President Obama that a leader should inspire people to greatness, but that to do he must be daring, courageous and unafraid to demonstrate what he is made of.  To this point in his first term, President Obama has failed to live up to any of the congressman's prescriptions.  The congressman also said,

"Dr. King would tell this young leader that it is his moral obligation to use his power and influence to help those who have been left out and left behind.  He would encourage him to get out of Washington, to break away from his handlers and advisors and go visit the people where they live.  He would urge Obama to feel the hurt and pain of those without work, of mothers and their children who go to bed hungry at night, of families living in shelters after losing their homes, and of the elderly who chose between buying medicine and paying the rent.  Dr. King would say that a Nobel Peace Prize winner can and must find a way to demonstrate that he is a man of peace, a man of love and non-violence.  He would say it is time to bring an end to war and get our young men and women out of harm's way.  Dr. King would assert without hesitation that war is obsolete, that it destroys the very soul of a nation, that it wastes human lives and natural resources." 

In stark contrast to the views of Congressman Lewis, Obama has done none of this, and he will not do so unless and until it serves to burnish his presidential legacy, a presidency won as the very realization of Dr. King's "dream".  And, even then, it will be too little, too late.  While I do recognize the congressman's unique perspective in commenting on what Dr. King might say to President Obama, I feel that his touch is perhaps too light.  In this I will side with Cornel West, and my own previously stated sentiments, that Dr. King would be appalled at the damage done to the social fabric of America, and the disservice that President Obama has done to "the dream".

The man who so assiduously wrapped himself in the mantle of Dr. King has since his election ignored the poor, the mothers and children, the families living in shelters, the elderly choosing between medication and rent.  He is a Nobel Laureate that champions war as an extension of foreign policy -- no man of peace is he.  To this point in his presidency, Obama has exacerbated King's triple evils, beyond even (as impossible as this sounds) the damage done by George W. Bush.

To be sure, there is blame enough for President Obama.  He is culpable for campaigning so shamelessly as the very embodiment of MLK, and for then walking back from Dr. King's principles once in office.  Obama abandoned his core constituency in the early days of his presidency but now, as the election looms, seeks to lure them back with bold words and new promises of action.  He does this knowing that 90% of the black vote will remain true to him, knowing that progressives will view with horror the Republican alternative, and knowing that the expanded application of social media and the increased flow of dark money give him a reasonable shot at independents, and a reasonable shot at a second term.  Beyond the intricacies of the campaign, however, Obama has shown that he is not the heir to Martin Luther King Jr -- the rhetoric of Candidate Obama is far removed from the actions of President Obama.

So, yes, Obama merits well-earned condemnation because of his profile, and because of the failed expectations he himself invited.  But others are well and truly deserving.  Dr. King might ask the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus how it is they have consistently failed to speak against the triple evils, and only now have begun to ratchet-up dissent on the issue of employment.  So, too, would he ask his own family to explain their vested interest in edifices and naming rights and corporate donors that seem to overshadow the actual work of delivering social change.  And he might ask each and every person who would file past this new monument what -- in the words of Congressman Lewis -- they have done to advance the dignity and worth of every human being, or what they have done to challenge their leaders on the moral meaning of their policies.

Dr. King would do this because, sadly, Congressman Lewis is correct, that after 43 years "his message would still be essentially the same".  He would be dismayed that so much attention could be lavished on a monument (its place of origin, the project's financing, the choice of inscriptions) while the struggle it is meant symbolize seems to have achieved so little.  He would quickly recognize that, given the power of the right-wing's rhetoric and the pervasive nature of today's corporate culture, the only remedy is, still, right action -- right action of the kind taken by Cornel West and Travis Smiley in their national tour against poverty.  This is, of course, but one example of what can to be done and is now being done, through the dedicated efforts of many, each and every day.  

But much more must be done to counter the forces that perpetuate poverty, injustice and war.  While it is impossible to state with any certainty what Martin Luther King would say and do if he were alive today, the informed comments of Congressman Lewis and Professors Dyson and West offer some plausible suggestions.  What is certain, though, is that Dr. King would not remain silent, and he would not abandon the principles for which he stood and for which he wished to be remembered.

Dr. King would view his true legacy as reflected in the right actions of all who would wish to honor him.


Postscript.  For those of us who don't live in the US, the discussion about the MLK memorial might seem a bit remote.  However, if you think of Dr. King in the context of such figures as Ghandi and Mandela it might take on more relevance.  There are far too few iconic figures as these in the world, and too many men who are described as "men of peace" are decidedly not.  We need to celebrate the agents of social change like King (and Jack Layton, who passed last week), as we emulate their principles and actions, because the forces that would perpetuate poverty, injustice and war are the same ones that would silence or co-opt their message.

Read David Garrow's book about Dr. King; go to The King Center and read or listen to his speeches; and press your own politicians to justify policies that are increasingly at odds with moral outcomes.  Right action and social change are not just American issues.

Update.  I found today (August 29) a commentary by Jesse Jackson that I had missed when writing the original post.  Had I seen it, I would have referred to it, and I'll recommend it as one of the writings you might wish to seek out.

His theme is, I'm happy to say, not inconsistent with my own -- that Dr. King's true legacy comes from "right action".  Jackson doesn't put it quite that way, but not so far off, either.

"Dr. King taught nonviolence, but nonviolence was not surrender.  We used our bodies as living sacrifices.  He took the sting out of jail cells and death.  No sacrifice is too great to achieve a higher moral purpose.

Perfect love casts our fear.  Dr. King was fearless.  He insisted that we see the humanity in our oppressors -- but that we not accept the oppression.  We must protest, in disciplined, nonviolent but forceful demonstrations, and boycott, litigate, lobby and legislate, tying up the legislatures, filling up the jails.  We had to demand respect for our humanity, even as we appealed to the humanity of those who would beat and jail us."

I'm thinking of the protests now taking place in front of the White House by opponents of the Oil Sands Pipeline as an example of the kind of right action that would gain Dr. King's approval, and perhaps his participation.

Still, I can't help but imagine that if, as Congressman John Lewis says, his message would still be the same today (a sadly demoralizing thought, that), Dr. King would take to the streets to rail against those same triple evils that plague us still -- poverty, injustice and war. He'd likely also find new evils to inveigh against, such as the pervasive corporate culture that dominates everyday life in our world.

He might also pointedly ask why we would wait for him to take action.

By David.

-----------

Your musical accompaniment for the day: Court and Spark, featuring Nora Jones; Herbie Hancock, River: The Joni Letters.  Enjoy.