Thursday, February 16, 2017

Conservationism versus Neo-Conservatism and Libertarianism

I find it hard to understand. One of the first very prominent conservationists was a Republican – Theodore Roosevelt, who established the US Forest Service. Beyond that, the first national park in the United States was established by another Republican – Ulysses S. Grant. In more modern times, Richard Nixon, yet another Republican, established the Environmental Protection Agency, creating it by Executive Order, later confirmed by Congressional action.

In the 1800s, people began to realize that laissez faire economics was destroying the land and water, and started to take action to preserve those things both for the health and welfare of current citizens and for the benefit of future generations. Conservationism was no great partisan issue, it was supported by members of both parties. In many cases, the laws were supported by those whose actions were limited by them.

The limitations on grazing on public lands were begun because before the limitations, overgrazing was widespread. Many ranchers realized that without limits, the public grazing land would be ruined, because it was in everyone’s interest to use as much as they could, and in no one’s interest to limit their own use. Outside control by the federal government allowed reasonable use for reasonable fees while keeping over grazing to a minimum.

Now we seem to have some big business interests which no longer care about anything other than their own enrichment and their current quarterly profits. If lands are despoiled, if air and water are polluted, if entire species are killed off, they have no concern whatsoever. So long as they make their profits, and can insulate themselves from the effects of their actions, they don’t care about the effects of those actions on others.

Those corporate and business interests have now taken over a significant part of the Republican party. They have a philosophical basis in extreme Libertarianism. They want as little governmental control over business actions as possible. Ironically enough, they have allied with the religious right which is all too happy to restrict individual liberty in the name of their religion.

What we seem to have lost in one whole segment of our voting population and business population is a concern for community. They feel that society benefits from the uncontrolled pursuit of individual interest. There is no sense of enlightened self interest, no sense that the interests of the community as a whole must also be recognized and respected. The Republican party has been taken over by corporate greed.  Worse, they used that to control state legislatures and redraw district lines to help them maintain power.

Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, warned of undue influence on government by the corporations. What he warned of and feared has come true, in the worst possible way. They want to privatize government functions in the view that government is inefficient and ineffective in its actions. In some instances, government agencies have indeed become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. We need however to reform those functions, rather than allowing wealthy businessmen to make millions or even billions off privatization.

Resource based companies want widespread sale of government lands – usually at fire sale prices – to private enterprise and for private exploitation, with minimal benefit to the country as a whole. I am reminded of the fall of the Soviet Union, when major Russian business were sold to what became oligarchs who profited greatly, so long as they lined the pockets of the politicians selling off the assets. We are rapidly becoming a kleptocracy – a government ruled by the corrupt, who exploit the ruled.

When will we learn? Will we even learn? Can we extricate ourselves from this cycle of greed and corruption in government? Unfortunately, the problems are not limited to the Republican party. The democrats get financial support from some of the same business and financial interests as the GOP. That’s why none of the Wall Street bankers who ripped off consumers in the lead up to and during the housing crash were never prosecuted. That’s why even when the Democratic party had control, laws forbidding the government from negotiating lower drug prices were allowed to stand. That is why we still have major corporations making billions off government contracts with often minimal oversight.

When our Constitution was written, the US had no corporations which could exert the kind of influence they do today. During the robber baron era, Republican politicians, such as Theodore Roosevelt, led the effort to break up mega corporations and limit their power. Where will our next progressive leader come from? How will she or he get the power to change things to benefit all of us, not just the ultra wealthy?

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Apres Trump

I fear there is a reason that more members of the GOP do not openly oppose Trump and his policies. Trump has become a lightning rod, who pushes what are in many cases outrageous policy changes. In doing so he has built a great deal of opposition to his policies and resentment of them. He has the support of hard core right wingers however, and first off, the GOP does not want to anger the core of its base.

Secondly, the opposition to Trump will only increase as he promotes ever more outrageous policies. This opposition will eventually cause the GOP to remove him, which will put Pence in the White House. Pence will truly push the agenda that the GOP wants to move forward with, but after the outrage over Trump, more people will be accepting of Pence and his ultra-conservative policies.

There will still be a core group of people who oppose Pence’s policies, but as the country breathes a sign of relief at Trump’s departure, there will be fewer and smaller protests over the quieter dismantling of civil rights, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, and women’s rights. Trump’s nomination of a hard line conservative to the Supreme Court has raised considerable opposition. In a year, Pence could do the same with far less opposition.

The GOP can tell its core that they gave Trump a chance, but there was too much opposition, while telling moderates they got rid of someone when it was obvious he didn’t have the support of the people. They shore up support both right and center, but need to wait until Trump has even less popularity than he does today.

After that happens, they can quietly begin cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, consumer protections, and business regulations. Too many members of Congress will be willing to move forward with that, in part because some of the most vocal opponents will still be recovering from the outrage and ouster of Trump.