George Will's Habit of Invention

From MediaMatters.org:

The blogger Digby popularized the use of the phrase "The Village" to describe Washington media elites. The mocking nickname was inspired by a 1998 Washington Post article by Sally Quinn about Washington's reaction to the Lewinsky scandal. Quinn quoted David Broder saying of Clinton's effect on Washington: "He came in here and he trashed the place ... and it's not his place." And: "The judgment is harsher in Washington. We don't like being lied to." Others -- journalists like David Gergen and Chris Matthews alongside politicians like Joe Lieberman -- echoed the sentiment that The Village just couldn't tolerate Clinton's lies.

It was all bunk, of course. The Village hated -- and, it must be noted, lied about -- the Clintons long before anyone, Bill Clinton included, had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky. And needless to say, other politicians have both had extramarital sex and told lies without drawing The Village's scorn.

So it's laugh-out-loud funny to suggest that Washington -- specifically, the newsrooms of Washington -- is filled with journalists of such reverence for the truth and honesty that they simply could not accept someone who told a lie. It certainly never manifested itself during the Bush administration -- Broder, for one, famously suggested that Clinton should have resigned because "he may well have lied" but repeatedly refused invitations to say the same about Bush.

But wouldn't it be nice if The Village really was as opposed to lying as Broder claimed? More specifically, if the media elite who serve as Village elders had the good sense to shun their colleagues who habitually misinform, that could go a long way toward reversing the decades-long erosion of public confidence in the news media.

Take, for example, George Will. Will recently used his syndicated Washington Post column to make several false claims about global warming -- something he has done frequently in the past. Will's column sparked widespread condemnation, but the Post refused to run a correction and insisted that it has a "multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible."

Read the whole article here...

A Revolutionary Proposal from Al Gore

by Norman Markowitz

Former Vice President Al Gore in a speech in Washington called for a policy that would lead to the elimination of all fossil fuel based electrical power production in the U.S. and its replacement by solar, wind, and other renewable energy source. Gore used the successful landing of men on the moon in 1969 fulfilling the pledge that John F. Kennedy made at the beginning of the decade as an example that an undertaking that many considered impossible at the time could be accomplished in a decade.

Although many will jump to the conclusion that such a profound reorganization of the forces that power production and transportation is socially impossible even if it were scientifically achievable (which many scientists, especially those employed by industry, will deny is true) Gore did come forward with a remarkably progressive pro working class policy suggestion as a way to foster a carbon dioxide free environment, a tax on on carbon dioxide production(which would be a tax on capital) to be accompanied by reductions on payroll taxes that currently are used to fund social security/Medicare-Medicaid, and are made by employers and employees.

"We should tax what we burn, not what we earn," Gore said, words that might be trite as poetry but sound brilliant as policy. Gore also pointed to the deepening crisis in economy, foreign policy and environment, pointing to Iraq and Afghanistan and said (quite rightly), "We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has got to change."

Gore's suggestions are breath-taking and, in the context of contemporary global capitalism (but only in that context) in all likelihood Utopian. He is right about the disasters that are in the offing, but his belief that business, especially large corporate power, can be made to see that these policies are in their best interest, in creating over the long haul far greater efficiency and balance in production, are the sort of liberal hopes that have been dashed over and over again. Most European and Japanese large capitalists would say that the systems of socialized medicine in existence in their countries have helped them become more productive and have reduced labor costs, but this did not mean that they supported such programs which were implemented in European countries at least either directly or indirectly by powerful labor movements, labor and socialist led governments, and Communist parties.

In the U.S. large corporations have not shown any willingness to lead in the creation of a national health care system comparable to those that exist in Western Europe, even though it might benefit them by reducing their overall labor costs both for health insurance payments and in losses from worker illnesses. My analysis is that most capitalists do not and will not support pro working class reforms even if it benefits them, because those reforms represent a strengthening of the working class and the possibility that the working class will build on those gains to more effectively fight capital. This does not mean that far-reaching changes in political economy that benefit the environment and the people are not possible under capitalism. It does mean that those changes do not emanate in advanced countries from the capitalists and will only be accepted by them after intense political and social struggle.

Although Gore's idea about a pollution payroll tax for employers is the best idea I have heard from a major party politician about taxation in a long time, it will take more than a government funding scientific research and development for a fossil fuel free environment to really achieve that goal (also such policies in themselves are very positive). It will take the sort of national planning and investment that have been the hall mark of socialist societies on an international level. At the very least, it will take the kind of overall national policy commitment of the kind that has characterized advanced countries in warfare, particularly WWII and the subsequent cold war.

But the present military-industrial complex and its oil company allies stand as a and perhaps the major roadblock to the creation of a fossil fuel free "clean" industrial complex based society. Although Al Gore mentioned the possible "national security" implications of hundreds millions of people from the poor countries fleeing the climate disasters that global warming is bringing (which is a real danger) he didn't specifically address the military industrial complex for which "national security" has been a slogan used to bury serious criticism since the beginning of the cold war in 1947. The dismantling of the military industrial complex in the U.S., as I see it, is a precondition to the achievement of Gore's vision of a pollution free economy and environment. Gore's speech though deserves full fledged support from all progressive people and hopefully will become a part of the presidential campaign, especially Gore's innovative tax reform suggestions.

Al Gore is right on the problem confronting the U.S. and the world. And I believe that he is right on the solution, even if his time frame for achieving that solution is something of a "maximum demand." Where he is weak is how to implement that solution, beyond his tax reform suggestion. It is there that the progressive people in labor, the arts sciences and professions can and must come forward with practical plans to achieve these lofty but socially necessary goals.

CPUSA, Nat'l Cmte., March 30th – Report on the Environment

Marc Brodine, a member of the national board of the CPUSA and the chair of the Communist Party in Washington State, delivered a report on the impact of global warming, its causes and consequences.

"Global warming," he said, "is not just an inconvenient truth." Global warming has to be examined within a larger context of capitalism and other environmental problems.

"We can't have a healthy humanity without a healthy natural world," he said.

He tied environmental degradation to capitalism. Increased capitalist exploitation of nature will result in serious crisis, he said. "We can either work with nature or nature will work against us," he argued. "Capitalism is playing with the survival of humanity for short-term profit," he noted.

Climate crisis is not the only severe environmental problem facing us. Depletion of fishing, soil, and fresh water supplies, animal extinctions, the spread of disease-causing pollutants, desertification, and growing air and water pollution are among the most severe.

"Even in the best case scenario, global warming requires immediate and dramatic action," Brodine said.

Brodine insisted that political changes are required, including democratization of the political process, public policy, and economic decision-making. These changes need to happen in order to move in the right direction and to mitigate the destructive policies of the Bush administration and the worst actions off the big transnational polluters.

Immediate action is needed because global warming threatens to transform the earth's climate systems in a very short period of time and create environments that are hostile to human survival never before experienced by developed humanity.

The earth is getting hotter, but global climate change has other features: in some places more rain and more flooding; in others less rain and more drought; in some places more snowfall next to glacier melt; flooding; and so on.

It is caused by the accumulation of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere trapping the sun's heat, warming the air and the land.

This is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"It is caused by human activity and can be slowed by human activity," Brodine said.

Social consequences include food and fresh water shortages leading to political competition for these dwindling resources.

"We can't profit our way to a solution," Brodine said. "But neither can we wait for socialism. Economic development that doesn't destroy the environment is required."

Some basic solutions are readily available but need political struggle to implement: green construction, production of hybrid vehicles, mass transit, alternative energy products like solar and wind, reduce mechanized industrial food production and increase labor-intense small agriculture, and major conservation efforts.

Brodine addressed current environmental action. "The biggest problem is not caused by individuals but by a system that privileges profit over people and nature," he said.

Capitalists are to blame for the crisis, but tend to try to shift the blame to ordinary folk, workers and the poor. They seek solutions that put the burden on us rather than on the policies and actions they take that cause the problem.

Some solutions that are being put forward by big industry are either partial solutions or untested or are very problematic steps. Biofuels, for example, drive up the cost of food or cause food shortages. "It means solving an energy problem by creating a food problem," Brodine stated.

Cap and trade schemes aren't enough.

Promotion of nuclear and "clean coal" are untested and present their own significant problems.

Brodine urged the formation of multi-issue broad-based coalitions that link environmental issues to public policy and other political struggles.

The working class, nationally and internationally, is the only force that can win and implement the changes needed.

Globally, people who contribute least global warming are paying the highest price as a result of climate change.

International reforms should include transforming international financial institutions and ending exploitative debt policies imposed on developing countries; transfer of green technology to developing countries; and implementing binding global agreements that enforce reduction of greenhouse emissions and fossil fuel usage.

Brodine pointed out that the Communist Party has a special role in winning the international communist movement to this agenda.

He urged that the environmental question be injected into all of the struggles people are involved in. The labor, youth, peace and equality movements have a significant contribution to make on the issue.

Individual actions are necessary but not sufficient to bring the change needed, he said.

Brodine proposed the expansion of the party's education on the question and the reconstitution of the party's environmental commission.

Good Jobs, Green Jobs, and the Emerging Labor-Green Alliance

We can promote economic growth and job creation even when we call for environmental sustainability. There is a growing alliance between labor and the environmental movement that is popularizing this idea.

One important development in this regard was the Blue-Green Alliance formed last year by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club.

According to an AFL-CIO Now post on this alliance, the goals of the coalition are to promote clean, alternative energy to help turn the tide against global warming, to promote fair trade policies that also include environmental protections, and to educate, expose, and reduce the use of toxins in our workplaces, consumer products, and homes.

This type of alliance between labor and the environmental movement is so important. It draws a lot of key issues together: creation of jobs and addressing issues of economic justice, globalization, corporate dominance of political processes, while educating on and advancing policies that promote sustainability.

Another such coalition is the Apollo Alliance, which is leading important efforts to transform our economy into a clean energy one, while creating new jobs and breaking the addiction to oil.

Apollo argues that a new clean economy itself will require the development of whole new industries and new job creation in manufacturing and other basic, union dense industries, or what it calls "green collar jobs." Check it out.

I love it.

--Joel Wendland