Author Archive for: Rupture.Capital

Maria Bustillos

The post How the “American Dream” Became Un-American appeared first on The Nation.

Editor’s note: This essay by David Corn first appeared in his newsletter, This Land. But we wanted to make sure as many readers as possible have a chance to see it. This Land is written by David twice a week and provides behind-the-scenes stories about politics and media; his unvarnished take on the events of the day; film, books, television, podcast, and music recommendations; interactive audience features; and more. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but right now you can sign up for a free 30-day trial of This Land here.

On Friday, the Republican National Committee formally censured GOP Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, castigating them for participating in the House investigation of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The resolution described the inquiry as “the persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” Consequently, it was widely interpreted and decried as equating the riot that led to nine deaths with reasonable debate and as showing support for Donald Trump’s brownshirts, though Republicans could claim the fuzzy wording only applied to the nonviolent protest rally that occurred prior to the assault on Congress. Most notable was that the GOP wasn’t more careful with its language regarding 1/6 and that its leaders felt no compunction to include in the resolution a denunciation of the violence committed by the mob of right-wing fanatics inspired and incited by Trump. Perhaps more stunning—though it’s hard to be stunned by Republican extremism these days—was that the GOP believed it could play politics with 1/6, as if that horrific event is just another dispute in the never-ending tussle with the libs, and get away with it.

This brazenness brought to mind a quote that had appeared in the New York Times a few days prior. Regarding the steady flow of revelations pertaining to Trump’s efforts to overthrow the election and retain power, Jeffrey Engel, the director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University, observed that voters had become desensitized, if not numb, to Trump’s attacks on democracy: “I actually think the American public is dramatically underplaying how significant and dangerous this is because we cannot process the basic truth of what we are learning about President Trump’s efforts—which is we’ve never had a president before who fundamentally placed his own personal interests above the nation’s.”

The final piece of his statement was naive. Previous presidents have placed their own political interests above the country’s. Richard Nixon, for one, conspired with a foreign power to sabotage the Vietnam War peace talks so he could prevent a breakthrough that would harm his electoral prospects in 1968. (This deed—one of the dastardliest in US presidential history—likely caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers.) But Engel’s larger point is intriguing: Trump’s wickedness may be too immense for the nation to absorb.

Each week yields new evidence that Trump was scheming in his final days to destroy American democracy. He improperly—possibly criminally—pressured state legislators, state election officials, and Justice Department officials to help him rig or undermine the vote count. Last week, Trump issued a statement acknowledging he had leaned on Vice President Mike Pence to “overturn” the election—not just provide the states more time to review their vote tallies. (Trump’s argument that a vice president has the power to do this is both dumb and dangerous. Certainly, the authors of the US Constitution did not intend to grant the vice president—who could be a presidential candidate—the unchecked power to decide an election.) But the enormity of Trump’s turpitude has not fully registered—in part because the Republicans have stuck to a this-parrot’s-not-dead stance and refused to admit reality.

But this shameless denialism can only work if enough of the public either goes along, declines to pay attention, or doesn’t give a damn. A president attempting a coup ought to define the political moment. A party that supports such a leader and his return to power ought to be scandalized and delegitimized. Failing the basic test of responsible governance—defending the Constitution—the GOP has proved itself unworthy of national stewardship. And yet the Republicans remain standing—and drool over the prospect of regaining control of Congress later this year.

So we end up harrumphing over the RNC resolution, squabbling over a violent raid on the citadel of US democracy. Engel’s point resonates: The audacity of Trump’s crime against the republic might be too great for many to absorb. Certainly, Trump fans don’t want to concede that the man in whom they placed their faith—their cult leader—acted with such villainy. Others may find it too tough to confront and comprehend such a huge and unprecedented crime, for doing so would compel involvement and action. During the Trump-Russia scandal, I hypothesized that one reason why Trump’s aiding and abetting of the Russian attack on the 2016 election did not spur greater popular outrage was that the primary notions of that controversy—that American democracy was vulnerable, that Moscow could successfully assault the United States, and that a presidential candidate and his party would provide cover for such an attack and exploit it for their own gain—were almost too outlandish to believe. Those are discomfiting premises that undermine our collective sense of security and stability.

A few weeks after the 2016 election, I encountered then–House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at an event and asked if the Democrats intended to press for investigations of the Russian subversion of the campaign. Her answer was, maybe. It was evident that she had not yet given much thought to this possibility. I wondered at the time if the matter was too overwhelming for our divided and tribalized government to address. Eventually, she and other Democrats did demand inquiries, which were initiated but were also highly politicized by Republicans who did not want a full exploration of what had transpired.

The attempted Trump coup, similarly, may be too profound a breach to be processed by our fractured political system. This presents a challenge and an opportunity to the House committee investigating January 6. Its members had considered holding extensive hearings last month, but they postponed them until April or May, as the committee reviews the massive amount of information it has gathered and pursues recalcitrant witnesses. Up to now, the Trump coup tale has emerged in bits and pieces through multiple revelations in the media. These components do not appear in a linear fashion. There’s new information about Trump muscling the Justice Department. Something about fake electors forging documents. A phone call to Georgia state election officials. A draft order to declare martial law. And so on. The story can be confusing and murky even to those of us who cover it steadily. Imagine how it comes across to citizens who only see the headlines intermittently. For them, it’s not drip, drip, drip; it’s more like a splatter.

Here’s where the House committee comes in. When it does get around to hearings, it will need to convey a clear and comprehensive story that shows anyone paying attention how Trump vigorously endeavored to sabotage the republic. This won’t happen with a lot of speechifying. But committee members—or staffers—should guide the public through the various elements. With charts. With video. With timelines. Witnesses can be quite useful at hearings. A sharp grilling of a bad actor will go viral. But narrative storytelling can be more important. The full tale of the Trump-Russia affair was never presented publicly (though the 966-page Senate Intelligence Committee report produced four years after the fact is a somewhat full and frightening chronology of what occurred).

As we learned with the Trump-Russia scandal, criminal investigations, such as special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, are imperfect vehicles for informing the citizenry. That’s the job of Congress or an independent commission. Remember the 9/11 Commission and its impressive final report that provided a straightforward recounting of that nightmare and the governmental failures that preceded it. The House January 6 committee ought to take its lead from the commission and embrace the effective telling of the 1/6 story as its top priority. The nation’s citizenry deserves a full account of Trump’s skullduggery, even if we can’t handle the truth.

The return of the dynastic firm isn’t enough to explain the radicalization of the GOP.

The Lebanese government is reportedly planning to devalue the local currency by up to 93% in a desperate bid to receive funding from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). As part of the plan, a major portion of foreign currency deposits in the banking system will be converted into local currency at different exchange rates.

Bailout Only Path Out of Crisis

In a bid to tackle its financial crisis, the Lebanese government is reportedly pursuing a plan that will see the country’s local currency being devalued by 93%. In addition, the government plans to convert a significant portion of foreign currency deposits in the banking system into the Lebanese pound.

According to a Reuters report, the Lebanese government hopes pursuing this financial plan will enable the country to secure a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This bailout is seen as Lebanon’s only path out of a long-running financial crisis.

The report on Lebanon’s latest plan to devalue its currency comes nearly two months after the central bank issued a directive — one that indirectly devalued the exchange rate for residents withdrawing from their dollar savings accounts. Immediately after the directive took effect, many Lebanese residents, with funds trapped in foreign currency-denominated savings accounts, reportedly besieged banks as they attempted to cash out their funds.

The government’s latest plan will result in holders of foreign currency-denominated savings accounts ceding all their savings to the government at several conversions, including one that devalues the pound by 75%.

Aligning Lebanon’s Exchange Rates

The objective of the government financial plan is to align the official exchange rate with that of the parallel market. Doing so has been the IMF’s key demand to the Lebanese government. At the time of writing, the Lebanese pound’s official exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar stands at 1,511 to one, while on the parallel market, one USD buys 21,300 Lebanese pounds.

Meanwhile, the Reuters report explains that as part of the government’s plan, depositors are expected to incur losses amounting to $38 billion while the government itself, shareholders in banks, and the central bank will incur a combined loss of $31 billion. The plan adds that the Lebanese government will return $25 billion to depositors in a period not exceeding 15 years.

What are your thoughts on this story? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Early on in the fight against COVID-19, one of the biggest problems humankind has faced in decades, there was broad support for global public solutions. A robust governmental response to the pandemic that transcended national boundaries, class, and other divisions seemed like the obvious choice. This changed, however, when Bill Gates and other powerful, self-serving actors pushed for, and ultimately succeeded in convincing, the World Health Organization and other global and national health authorities to accept public-private partnerships as the ideal model for vaccine rollouts. Gates, one of the richest men in the world, overwhelmed the voices of many public health officials who called for a public vaccine and instead almost single-handedly propped up a system, backed by the large drug companies, that allowed said companies to maintain patent rights over the vaccines and left governments to compete for access in the “open market” through public-private partnerships.

Schemes like the one that Gates promoted, where private enterprises take on the role of governmental entities and then fail at that task as they pursue market interests instead of the best interests of the public, are not new or limited to public health.

The results of this strategy have been an unmitigated disaster, particularly in the Global South, where the long history of Gates’ public-private approach to addressing a variety of humanitarian crises has had, at best, mixed results. Africa, where the lack of access to vaccines has led to less than 10% of Africans being fully vaccinated and the continent receiving only 6% of the world’s vaccine supply despite having 17% of the world’s population, has particularly struggled under this strategy. This global vaccine apartheid, however, does not only impact those in the Global South; it is directly linked to the development and transmission of new variants that impact all of us.

Schemes like the one that Gates promoted, where private enterprises take on the role of governmental entities and then fail at that task as they pursue market interests instead of the best interests of the public, are not new or limited to public health. In fact, these kinds of privatization schemes have come to dominate the American political landscape in the last 30 years. It has fundamentally shifted how our democracy works, and even how we define what is and is not a public good. Moreover, the neoliberal celebration of public-private partnerships as the cure-all for society’s ills has transformed the relationship between government policy and the public, shifting “the people” from the position of citizens who are engaged in the democratic process of improving the life and health of our shared society to the position of passive consumers of an ever-dwindling supply of services. 

Donald Cohen, co-author of the new book The Privatization of Everything: How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back points to the vaccine crisis as an example of how privatization has failed us all. “It’s clear to me that the health of all of us depends on the health of each of us, everyone needs to get it. When you put it in the market it is a complete disaster,” Cohen told TRNN.

The book points out how democracy and privatization inherently do not mix, because public citizens have minimal input into how private businesses operate.

Cohen and his co-author Allen Mikaelian wrote their book to highlight how the massive increase in privatization throughout all areas of government has changed not only how we receive services, but also how our democracy operates. “We are in an environment of tax cutting… we’re in a general era of austerity, especially at the state level,” said Cohen. “So what that leaves across the board is things that we all need that we don’t have the money to do, and the private sector swoops in and says, ‘We’ve got a solution for your problems: let’s privatize it’… We see it in virtually all sectors and we wanted to tie it all together [in the book]… to say there is something larger going on about democracy.”

The book points out how democracy and privatization inherently do not mix, because public citizens have minimal input into how private businesses operate. Cohen points to the privatization of the parking meters in Chicago as a prime example of citizens losing control over public choices. After a company owned by Morgan Stanley took over the collection of parking fees in the city, not only has the city lost revenue despite increased parking costs, the city has also been forced to pay compensation whenever public parking spaces are removed. This has caused complications for the city as it tries to build new roads and bike lanes, hold public events, and plan new infrastructure. “It’s a straitjacket on democratically elected people’s ability to do their jobs,” said Cohen.

The book walks through a plethora of privatization schemes throughout the United States, showing examples of their impact in almost every area that governments are supposed to serve. From the Flint water crisis to the lack of public broadband internet access, to the exploding number of incarcerated individuals, all have roots in—and have been made worse by—privatization. While the book could not address all of the privatization issues in America, Cohen hopes that readers will see ties to their own communities when reading it. “That was the intent of the book, to say we are giving you illustrations, but the illustrations are about something that you might see in other places,” he said. 

“So racism is used again to separate people from government and to turn people away from the idea of government and the institution of government. So the government doesn’t fund things, things get worse, and the privatizers walk in and say, ‘We’re the reformers, we’ve got the solution.’”

The push for this widespread and relentless privatization of government services found some of its earliest proponents in the white supremacist backlash to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which led directly to the “school choice” movement. Milton Friedman and other neoliberal economists seized on the racist reaction to Brown and the prospect of integrated public schools to start heavily promoting “school choice” as an alternative; such campaigns against public education have been an essential part of the broader movement to privatize government services. In furthering this goal, they helped provide race-neutral language to white supremacists who wanted to keep schools segregated. “[The school choice movement] created white flight academies, it closed down other schools… but more importantly the idea ‘you should be able to decide who your kids are in school with’ enables bias, explicit racism, implicit racism, implicit bias—it enables that,” said Cohen. 

Prominent conservative activists and string-pullers such as the Koch brothers jumped on the school privatization bandwagon to launch a decades-long campaign to promote a privatization-heavy libertarian agenda that “coincidentally” happened to make them billions of dollars in government contracts. “For the Koch brothers [their privatization championing] is convenient. They’re true believers… but it’s convenient libertarianism because, by the way, they make billions of dollars,” said Cohen. “Because it’s not just Koch. When you look at corporate America and most corporations, they are not that different… they fund conservative politicians, they are out there pushing for market solutions and a tiny government, they are free market ideologues, but it is convenient and profitable for them.”

This privatization movement reached the masses with the election of Ronald Reagan, once again heavily propped up by racist tropes. “Welfare queens were the go-to under Reagan, and what’s that about, really?” asked Cohen. “That was about [saying that] government serves somebody else, not you, and the someone else it serves is undeserving. So racism is used again to separate people from government and to turn people away from the idea of government and the institution of government. So the government doesn’t fund things, things get worse, and the privatizers walk in and say, ‘We’re the reformers, we’ve got the solution.’”

While Reagan is often credited as the most important figure in the paradigmatic shift to private companies controlling what used to be the terrain of government, Cohen argues that Bill Clinton was pivotal in its implementation. “Reagan fundamentally failed. He came in as the anti-government president, and super charged the folks… but he couldn’t make it happen,” said Cohen. “Clinton comes in and he’s a new entity, he was a [moderate], he was a New Dem… so he says ‘The era of big government is over’… and he opened the floodgates.”

“The idea [in these reforms under Clinton] that the citizens are customers is kind of baked in, and I feel that it’s part of the problem because it’s like, yes we need to be served well, yes we need to be treated with respect, but we are not just customers and consumers—we are citizens. That idea that we are all market actors is really problematic.”

Clinton did what many Republicans wish they could have done, overseeing the widespread privatization of public goods both through welfare reform, which opened the first major part of the social safety net to privatization, and through his creation and promotion of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government led by the Gore Commission, which called for a fundamental change in the way government operated. “The idea [in these reforms under Clinton] that the citizens are customers is kind of baked in, and I feel that it’s part of the problem because it’s like, yes we need to be served well, yes we need to be treated with respect, but we are not just customers and consumers—we are citizens. That idea that we are all market actors is really problematic.”

Cohen, who is also the executive director of In the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization that studies public goods and services, hopes that the book inspires people to ask questions about efforts to privatize their government services. “Elected officials and appointed officials too often don’t really ask the hard questions before the contract happens. It’s not all nefarious, some of it is just they are overworked and overwhelmed, and the private sector walks in with answers that say cheaper, faster, better, and we will take one problem off your plate,” said Cohen. “You are not going to learn the intricacies of infrastructure finance [for example], so that’s why you have to ask questions. You don’t have to become the expert, you have to ask questions. The most important thing is to ask these hard questions and demand that our elected officials and the staff and agencies do the same thing.”