fascist america: step six, are you on the list?

Over the past years we have slowly watched as the terms of "enemy combatant", "terrorist", and other such terms have come to encompass the very citizens of the mostly free United States of America. We have seen it become more and more convenient over our history as certain administrations faced opposition from ordinary citizens. The greatest mobilization that met a very strong military backlash (including multiple troop units, calvary, and tanks) was the Bonus Army of the 1930s. War veterans from WWI demanded their bonus pay as the Great Depression took strong effect on their lives and families. Before I go too far on a tangent, the topic of today's step towards a frightening state is the fact that regular citizens with dissenting opinions can and do face state repercussions. The best current example of this is the creation of "Free Speech Zones" at political events. This includes both Democratic and Republican. I know that in many of my posts under the title "fascist america" tend to lean towards examples of Republican or 'Right-leaning' peoples and politicians. The fact of the matter is that while it may be easiest to find example of the overt stomping of civil rights by 'the Right,' it is just as easy to see the silence and inaction of 'the Left' when it comes to challenging what may be deemed wrong.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

The definition relates back to Step Five, where we saw the backlash of 'terrorist' attacks on Arab-American citizens and others confused as looking like terrorists. It also relates back to discussions in Step Five regarding the Real ID act and the redefining of 'enemy combatant' and 'terrorist' to include ordinary citizen groups. Even more now, if you so much as carry a dissenting sign at any political event you will be nearly 'hog-tied' and carted off if you fail to remove yourself from the event to a "free speech zone." In an article in The American Conservative Magazine published in 2003, the author highlights three separate events at three Bush visits across the country. In an interview with 65 year-old retired steel-worker, Bill Neel after his arrest he later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

A notable quote, I can only hope that the majority of US citizens agree with his statement that our whole country should be a free-speech zone. In a CNN article written in 2004, the constitutionality of free-speech zones was considered and easily the author debates the difference between zones and searches, which is the least intrusive and still allows for dissent to be heard. I cannot necessarily agree that searches will allow dissenters to be closer to a political event. The author also importantly brings up the idea of dialogue and how penning protesters completely negates that first amendment ability to persuade. If we really seek a better America, why not encourage dialogue. It can then be noted that protesters are not there for dialogue, but just to yell slogans, but the idea cannot be lost that placing voices of dissent in cages cannot promote democracy. Another important issue to think about is security concerns, however the author does not agree and easily says that the security concern is not valid to allow for 'free-speech zones.'

More recently, a judge in Denver allowed for 'free-speech zones' to be set-up for the DNC in 2008. In the article, the judge says that the security concern is far greater than the rights of citizens. The ACLU and others argued against the ruling, but in the end Judge Marcia Kreiger agreed that some freedom of expression would be restricted, but stuck to her ruling on the basis of the security concern. The youtube videos of protesters was in typical fashion of police force against protest and dissent. The protests were near mirror images of many other protests that I cover in Step Three. The police state is not above political party as an ABC reporter was man-handled at the DNC:



Also this year, the Center for Constitutional Rights reports that 52 anti-war activists won a $2 million lawsuit against the New York City police for violating their First Amendment "rights to assemble and speak their mind free from the fear that they will be punished for their views." (CCR) Why is it in some cases easy to hold law enforcement accountable for wrong-doings related to constitutional rights and other times the legal battles just disappear?

These events and others are what can lead a person to be added to "the list." On 13 August, the TSA Blog wrote a reaction to the USA Today article saying that you would be added to a list if you forgot your ID at the airport. This may have been proven false, but contradiction was written everywhere. One commenter says this (better than I could):

From the article you linked to in your unsigned blog post:
Asked about the program, TSA chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday that the information helps track potential terrorists who may be "probing the system" by trying to get though checkpoints at various airports.

Later Tuesday, Hawley called the newspaper to say the agency is changing its policy effective today and will stop keeping records of people who don't have ID if a screener can determine their identity. Hawley said he had been considering the change for a month. The names of people who did not have identification will soon be expunged, he said.

In your unsigned blog post you wrote:
An August 13 USA Today article overstated the Transportation Security Administration’s interest in passengers who come to airport checkpoints without identification but cooperate in establishing their identity. The story gives the public the impression they might be put on a “list” if they forget their ID. That is false.

Passengers whose identity is confirmed will not be added to any watch list or face additional scrutiny during future checkpoint visits.

Please explain why you are so intensely spinning or slanting the facts.

The story plainly and clearly states the TSA is no longer adding those person's without ID to the list, and that those already on the list will be expunged, yet you attempt to twist the truth by saying persons are not put on a list for that, clearly implying that TSA never did put those names on the list that they never did keep.

Your boss says otherwise.

So it seems there is no doubt about it there are watch lists out there, if you care about the US and its people and have decided to do something about it, then you are probably on there too. It has become a constant that if you try to voice dissent or find something out you will be detained and taken to court - we see it in cases of reporters over and over, of ordinary citizens on no fly lits, of college students charged when speaking their mind - systematic detention and release of 'trouble-makers' has become a policy of our government. In July, Reuters reported that the 'Terrorism Watch List' topped one million people. Watch the CNN video made by a CNN commentator who also happens to be on the 'terrorism watch list.'



Read Step One,Step Two, Step Three, Step Four & Step Five.

What is Progressivism? Pt. 2

Read the original post by Anders Ibsen and comments at the Young People For Blog.

| August 30, 2008

In my last post, I identified the core assumptions of Conservative doctrine in order to provide the right contrast to help us create our own ideology.

Conservatism is built on a foundation of atomism (individualism run amok) and crony capitalism. While conservatives profess a belief in personal responsibility and minimalist government, what they really strive for is selective government - I want mine, someone else pays for it.

With the basics of the other side covered, let's attempt a rough idea of what we're all about. Returning to the two basic questions (what is human nature, what is the role of government), Progressivism seems to boil down to two things:

1. People are cooperative, and capable of personal growth.

2. We're all in this together.

Read more below.

That communitarian sense of compassion is the beating heart of everything we stand for. Like Liberalism, we Progressives believe that government is obliged to provide for the common well-being, as well as respecting the private rights of individuals. As Barack Obama explained so well last night, Progressives and Liberals adhere to two overlapping kinds of responsibility: personal responsibility - my obligation to pull my weight and respect the rights of others - and mutual responsibility - my duty to contribute to the greater good and help those around me.

Progressivism is not a synonym for Liberalism, however. Though we are both communitarians, Progressives have rejected the more simplistic Utilitarianism of Liberalism for a more nuanced, mature Capability Approach.

A Liberal believes in attaining the greatest good for the greatest number. Government levels the playing field to accomplish this goal, while doing its best to also protect individual rights. Inequality is primarily seen as a matter of resource deprivation - throw more money at the problem, institute more charities and welfare programs and the problem will go away.

The Progressive sees society and the individual as a work in progress. Inequality isn't just a disparity of resources, but the deprivation of choice and potential. An uninsured family is denied the ability to live healthily and lives in constant fear of crisis, and as a result lacks the capacity to enjoy other basic human needs (like recreation or political involvement, for example). Progressivism refines Liberalism in this way, by recognizing that the enjoyment of individual rights depends on freeing the individual from the tyranny of social powerlesness - a freedom that requires social equity and cooperation.

It's this crucial development - seeing choice as a matter of power, rather than an isolated decision - that separates Progressivism from Conservatism and Liberalism.

Taken one step further, the Capability Approach becomes class conscious: in a plutocratic society where most economic and political power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, one class has effectively monopolized choice, and expropriated decision-making power from the majority. The majority cannot exercise full choice without more power.

This final implication touches on democracy itself. Democratic government becomes a collaborative struggle against the deprivation of social power - a battlefield of principles, as opposed to a marketplace of ideas. So long as undemocratic systems of political and economic power remain in place, we can never be truly free.

Through empowering the many, we enrich the soul of the individual. Through freedom and equity, we offer the world a life that is fully human.

What is Progressivism? Pt. 1

Read the original post by Anders Ibsen and further comments on the Young People For Blog.

August 28, 2008

In their earlier posts, Patrick St. John and Jason Richberg began a conversation that I think is long overdue: what the heck is Progressivism?

Our first step in analyzing or creating any political ideology is identifying its core assumptions. These come down to two key questions:

1. What is human nature?

2. What is the role of government?

From these answers come all the different principles, value statements and policy positions that compose the movement's ideology. But before we delve into Progressivism, let's contrast what are about to articulate with what we already know about our rivals on the Right.

Scientists increasingly believe that there are cognitive differences between liberal and conservative brains that transcend environmental factors (race, class, gender, etc.). Conservatives are more likely to cling stubbornly to one course of action, even in the face of changing circumstances; liberals are much more likely to adapt their beliefs or actions when new information or circumstances come into play.

It has been empirically proven that conservatives are happier than liberals in the face of social inequality. The same situation (let's say, unequal pay for female workers) produces different emotional reactions: liberals become outraged at a system they hold to be discriminatory; conservatives become apathetic to the victim's suffering, defend the system as fair, and frequently display hostility towards the victim herself.

In short, the conservative individual is hard-wired on a biological level to be especially fearful and resistant to changing circumstances, and to rationalize away the suffering of others.

Fear and greed.

Conservatism as an ideology follows suit. Returning to the two questions, the Right's cardinal assumptions become apparent:

1. People are selfish individualists.

2. Every man for himself.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith couldn't have said it better: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

The earliest liberal thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, saw people as isolated individualists, ready to screw their neighbors over at the first opportunity. To the godfathers of classical liberalism, all government was meant to do was keep the peace and protect private property from the savagery of our neighbors. This idea of the night-watchman state lasted well throughout American history into the Gilded Age, until the Great Depression proved it utterly wrong. Government must do something.

The legacy of the New Deal - and the idea that proactive government is a necessity for a just society - permanently altered all American ideologies. But it impacted Conservatism in the most ironic of ways: the universal acceptance of the welfare state forced Conservatism to become even more self-centered.

The painful truth for our right-of-center counterparts is that everyone wants government. Even conservatives. Very few people actually want to give away roads, public schools, Social Security or medical first-responders.

Conservatives really don't oppose government at all. They want the benefits of safety and order (not to mention the government intervention required to enforce their moral codes), just like everyone else. What they truly oppose is the concept of society itself.

The social compact of mutual obligation, responsibility and respect between equals is utterly lost to a conservative. Instead, the Right rebels against the principles of the liberal state while clinging desperately to it: conservatives want all the benefits of the system, but feel morally outraged at the idea that they are somehow responsible for it.

Conservatives consciously espouse a belief in limited government; but what they unconsciously believe is that government is a moral arbiter that should reward the worthy. Look no further than Too Big To Fail, the idea that it is paramount for government to bail out multi-billion dollar corporations when they sink. American Conservatism has tangled up social hierarchy and personal morality into a circle argument in which one becomes evidence of the other.

Conservative governance is neither conservative nor governance, but a system of redistribution and apologism - a redistribution of wealth and power to the wealthy and powerful, and an antisocial ideology of self-congratulation and scorn. Our power as the majority may be vast, but it is nothing, so long as the creed of righteous selfishness goes unchallenged.