Empire and Social Insecurity: Battle Plans of This White House

<p>It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear the fawning patter of the news media.</p> <p>In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how the "Union" (meaning the United States) is doing. In reality, the State of the Union speech is a "bully pulpit" where presidents build public support for their next actions.</p> <p>George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the <em>real</em> "State of the Union." Bush couldn’t mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. "homeland" is divided between "two Americas"—half of which hates the sight of him.</p> <!--break--> </p><p>It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face<br /> during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating<br /> to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear<br /> the fawning patter of the news media.</p><p /><p> </p><p>In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how<br /> the "Union" (meaning the United States) is doing. In<br /> reality, the State of the Union speech is a "bully pulpit"<br /> where presidents build public support for their next actions.</p><p /><p> </p><p>George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the<br /> <em>real</em> "State of the Union." Bush couldn’t<br /> mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants<br /> to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the<br /> invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He<br /> didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. "homeland" is<br /> divided between "two Americas"—half of which hates<br /> the sight of him.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Could he mention how millions mutter about maybe moving to another<br /> country, or finding new and powerful ways to resist? No.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush didn’t even discuss the usual government balance sheet<br /> (for the obvious reason that the annual budget deficit is approaching<br /> <em>half a trillion dollars,</em> while he demands $100 billion more<br /> to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan).</p><p /><p> </p><p>No, this government is on a <em>faith-based</em> mission. Facts<br /> aren’t allowed to obscure the vision. Obstacles are just<br /> supposed to be bulldozed away, by brute force if necessary. And every<br /> policy speech of theirs has a chilling feel of Orwellian<br /> double-think.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush was puffed up during this speech by Iraq’s staged<br /> election-under-the-gun, which came to us distorted through the lens<br /> of an incredibly dishonest media. This election sham was offered as<br /> proof that (regardless of "errors") the U.S. is at least<br /> (somehow and supposedly) "doing some good in Iraq." In the<br /> audience of Bush’s speech, his conservative supporters dipped<br /> their fingers in purple ink and waved them around (in supposed<br /> "solidarity with Iraqi voters").</p><p /><p> </p><p>How much more honest it would be if they just dipped their hands<br /> in Iraqi <em>blood</em> and waved <em>that</em> around while Bush<br /> ranted.</p><p /><p> </p><p style="text-align: center;">*****</p><p /><p> </p><p><em><strong>Let’s look beneath the ugliness of it all and do<br /> some "reconnaissance on the enemy." Let’s dissect<br /> what this speech shows about where this government is actually<br /> planning to go. Three things jump out:</strong></em></p><p /><p> </p><ul><br /> <li>First, Bush openly threatened Syria and Iran.</li><p /><p> </p><li>Second, he took aim at Social Security and proposed first steps<br /> toward its privatization.</li><p /><p> </p><li>And third, he made it clear that he will seek to end<br /> women’s legal right to choose abortion and appoint a new wave<br /> of judges to get this accomplished.</li><br /> </ul><p /><p> </p><h2>King of the World</h2><p /><p> </p><p>The President of the United States stood in front of Congress like<br /> an emperor announcing what other governments must do—Saudi<br /> Arabia must do this, Egypt must do that, Syria must heel. He openly<br /> encouraged the overthrow of Iran’s government and pledged<br /> support for that effort.</p><p /><p> </p><p>In Iraq, Bush had said he was invading because of WMDs—but<br /> there were no WMDs. He accused Iraq of "links" to<br /> "terrorists"—but there were no links. There was<br /> supposedly a threat to the U.S. "homeland"—but there<br /> was no such threat.</p><p /><p> </p><p>What very very short memories we are expected to have! Because<br /> now, in this speech, we are suddenly <em>back to Square One</em>.<br /> Bush’s justification for threatening Iran? They may be<br /> <em>trying</em> to get WMDs. They <em>supposedly</em> back unnamed<br /> "terrorists." (Déjà vu all over again!)</p><p /><p> </p><p>So here we are: Justifications for war blended into each other,<br /> until it is clear that, for the U.S. government, no justification is<br /> needed.</p><p /><p> </p><p>And the underlying, unstated logic behind this? The U.S. is making<br /> an aggressive grab for world domination, and everyone (especially the<br /> strategic Middle East countries and the potential rival powers of the<br /> European Union) is simply supposed to fall in line.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush’s speech was surrounded by more explicit and more<br /> ominous threats from his government. Vice President Cheney openly<br /> said that Israel might now launch targeted strikes on Iran. The new<br /> Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice refused to say there would not be<br /> war, explaining that Bush was not taking "any option off the<br /> table." In other words, Iran (and other countries in the world)<br /> now live under a permanent, unrelenting threat of U.S. attack.</p><p /><p> </p><p><strong>Let’s talk about values for a moment:</strong> All<br /> this naked imperialism is supposed to be considered normal. A simple<br /> and mindless equation is used: The U.S. government is for<br /> "freedom" and backed by "god"—and so<br /> whatever this government does, or wants, or demands is righteous.</p><p /><p> </p><p>And no one is supposed to think too deeply whether all this<br /> negates the rights of other nations, whether it disregards what their<br /> people really want, whether people ruled by the U.S. are ever really<br /> "free," whether there really is a "god" backing<br /> colonial crusades, or whether what <em>really is being imposed</em><br /> isn’t just the sordid interests of U.S. capitalism.</p><p /><p> </p><h2>The Last Shred of Security</h2><p /><p> </p><p>Bush has declared war on Social Security.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Some things need to be pointed out before we can get to the heart<br /> of what that means:</p><p /><p> </p><h3>First, his targeting of Social Security is a sign of the<br /> extremism of the forces who now rule the U.S.</h3><p /><p> </p><p>Social Security was set up to guarantee a minimum survival pension<br /> for much of the population and to guarantee that disabled people and<br /> orphans aren’t simply abandoned.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Nearly 48 million people currently receive Social Security<br /> benefits (with average benefits of $11,000 a year). Without Social<br /> Security, it is estimated that half of older people would find<br /> themselves in desperate poverty—unable to cover the bare<br /> necessities of life. Though it is shamefully inadequate, Social<br /> Security is popular (and even beloved) because for many working<br /> people it is the only pension they have.</p><p /><p> </p><p>And so Social Security has been considered "the third<br /> rail" of U.S. politics—meaning that if a politician even<br /> lays a finger on it, it could be political death.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush (and his charging crew of right wingers) clearly dare to go<br /> there—with hatchets in their hands.</p><p /><p> </p><h3>Second, Bush’s program has nothing to do with<br /> solving a "crisis in Social Security."</h3><p /><p> </p><p>For decades, reactionary forces have deliberately<br /> "under-funded" all the social institutions and programs<br /> they wanted to destroy (including public education, public housing<br /> and Social Security). Then, as a program like that grows bankrupt and<br /> frustratingly inadequate—they say "it isn’t<br /> working" and demand its abolition through privatization.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Privatized education (like school vouchers, etc.) leads to<br /> formalizing a class-tiered and segregated educational system, filled<br /> with religious ignorance.</p><p /><p> </p><p>When horrific public housing gets torn down, hundreds of thousands<br /> are driven into homelessness.</p><p /><p> </p><p>When welfare was gutted, many more impoverished women were driven<br /> into prostitution. And whole communities are driven deeper into the<br /> "faith-based" embrace of fundamentalist churches.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Social Security is now grossly underfunded. And their solution?<br /> Bush’s plans don’t solve Social Security’s funding<br /> problems. He never discussed funding at all. His plan was for the<br /> "partial privatization" of the system—shifting some<br /> of the tax money of younger people into the stock market. And this is<br /> no solution at all: and will increase the insecurity of<br /> people’s lives and retirement.</p><p /><p> </p><h3>Third, Bush’s approach to Social Security is to turn<br /> different sections of the people against each other, and against the<br /> remaining national social net.</h3><p /><p> </p><p>After working their lives away, people need to be cared<br /> for—and guaranteed dignified, meaningful, and secure lives<br /> <em>even after they are too old or sick to work.</em> This has<br /> <em>never</em> happened under this capitalist system, and even the<br /> flimsy, tattered social net that <em>does</em> exist is now under<br /> frontal attack.</p><p /><p> </p><p>But as Social Security stumbles toward bankruptcy, the discussion<br /> of its problems are used to fuel a raw mood of dog-eat-dog. Bush<br /> argues that since old people are now living longer, they are an<br /> unfair burden on coming generations of young people. And so young<br /> people (supposedly) should look at their narrowest selfish<br /> interests—and demand that more of <em>their</em> retirement<br /> taxes should go straight <em>to themselves</em> (personally, as<br /> individuals).</p><p /><p> </p><p>In the most twisted argument seen in a loooooooong time, Bush<br /> actually says (in his current speaking tour) that Black people should<br /> support Social Security privatization because they die earlier than<br /> white people, and fewer Black men make it to retirement age. Is he<br /> arguing that efforts must quickly be made to guarantee decent health<br /> care for Black people so they don’t die needlessly? No! His<br /> argument is that Black people should help him dismantle Social<br /> Security, <em>because (supposedly) fewer of them live to get<br /> it!</em></p><p /><p> </p><p>(Not only is his argument twisted, it is also a lie. For about 20<br /> percent of retired people, Social Security is the only income. But<br /> that number is 38 percent among Black and Hispanic elderly people.<br /> Attacking Social Security means attacking the most poor, and not<br /> surprisingly that includes many Black people.)</p><p /><p> </p><h3>Fourth, Bush’s plan of partial privatization is only<br /> a first step.</h3><p /><p> </p><p>The goal here is to create the <em>political conditions</em> for<br /> abolishing universal social protections. Once younger people invest<br /> part of their social security tax in the stock market, once the<br /> unified system is broken up, then (and this is openly stated in<br /> conservative think-tanks) the larger "political consensus"<br /> backing the social net is shattered. <em>These are plans to<br /> ultimately end a universal, guaranteed national pension<br /> system!</em></p><p /><p> </p><p>Now, let’s look at the bigger picture. This destruction of<br /> Social Security is part of a larger move to actually rewrite the<br /> social contract of U.S. capitalism and to create a so-called<br /> "ownership society."</p><p /><p> </p><p><strong>Let’s talk about values:</strong> The conservative<br /> Republican forces now in power want a society without <em>a hint</em><br /> of social solidarity or the "entitlements" of guaranteed<br /> mutual support. They want a society where fear and insecurity<br /> reinforce conformity and obedience, and where an individual’s<br /> only refuge is the traditional family and the traditional church.</p><p /><p> </p><p>They want a world that glorifies "personal<br /> responsibility"—which really means that the injustices of<br /> society can be blamed on supposed moral flaws (and<br /> "irresponsibility") of those who are suffering.</p><p /><p> </p><p>In short, they want a society where poverty comes without dignity<br /> or entitlements, and where wealth comes without guilt.</p><p /><p> </p><p><strong>And let’s talk about the material underpinnings of<br /> those ugly values:</strong> They <em>want</em> to guarantee that the<br /> United States has an ever-growing lower tier of desperate people who<br /> live in fear of falling. Their whole program is fundamentally rooted<br /> in capitalism and in the capitalist <em>need</em> for more and more<br /> people willing to work for less and less—to guarantee the<br /> global competitiveness of their "homeland."</p><p /><p> </p><h2>Rewriting the Basic Law</h2><p /><p> </p><p>Bush’s speech laid out a tight and specific battle plan for<br /> winning "the culture wars"—by using presidential<br /> powers to remake the legal system. Bush said he will appoint judges<br /> who don’t "legislate from the bench," and he demanded<br /> that the Senate’s Republican majority have a free hand to<br /> approve his nominees. And he called for passing a constitutional<br /> amendment against gay marriage.</p><p /><p> </p><p>To understand what all this means, let’s list the major<br /> Supreme Court decisions that conservatives are talking about when<br /> they denounce "judges legislating from the bench":</p><p /><p> </p><p><em>Brown vs. Board of Education</em> (1954, which dismantled<br /> official state segregation of schools)</p><p /><p> </p><p><em>Griswald v. Connecticut</em> (1965, which said states could<br /> not make it illegal to sell birth control)</p><p /><p> </p><p><em>Loving v. Virginia</em> (1967, which overturned state laws<br /> forbidding interracial marriage)</p><p /><p> </p><p><em>Roe v. Wade</em> (1973, which made abortion legal across the<br /> U.S.)</p><p /><p> </p><p><em>Lawrence v. Texas</em> (2003, which legalized gay sexual acts<br /> anywhere in the U.S.)</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush and his supporters uphold a legal doctrine called<br /> "strict constructivism"—which means that judges can<br /> only uphold those rights that are literally written into the<br /> Constitution. Large parts of the modern legal tradition, like the<br /> "right to privacy" and "separation of church and<br /> state," are not literally written into the words of the<br /> Constitution.</p><p /><p> </p><p><strong>Once again, let’s talk about values:</strong> What<br /> guides this whole program is the fundamentalist view that people are<br /> basically sinful, that their behavior and choices need to be confined<br /> and sharply limited. It is a view that says Right and Wrong are<br /> absolute and determined by fundamentalist Christian teachings on<br /> "god"—and therefore people should <em>not</em> have<br /> wide "choices" about their own lives or about the direction<br /> of society itself.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Bush justified his plans by talking about "building a culture<br /> of life"—which is a code word for attacking women’s<br /> right to choose. And it is revealing that, in the same speech, he<br /> talked about how he plans to reform the federal death penalty<br /> system—which is a plan for getting the federal government<br /> <em>back in the business of executing prisoners!</em> What a<br /> wonderful "culture of life"!</p><p /><p> </p><h3>Let’s talk about the bigger picture:</h3><p /><p> </p><p>The right wing calls all this "culture wars"—and<br /> they really mean "wars." At the end, they want a victory<br /> where their enemies are flattened and they have the power to remake<br /> the U.S. (and much of the world!).</p><p /><p> </p><p>Specifically they want to <em>impose</em> a reactionary and<br /> traditional view of patriarchy on family and sexuality, including<br /> especially on women and teenagers. They want to end abortion and much<br /> more: they want to sharply restrict birth control, sex information,<br /> tolerance of gay sexuality, and social experimentation. They want<br /> "cultural diversity" to disappear under a tidal wave of<br /> conformity and censorship. Many of Bush’s Christian fascist<br /> hard- core supporters openly see their goals in theocratic<br /> terms—they want the harsh morality and rules of their religion<br /> to be the law-of-the-land.</p><p /><p> </p><p>It is a vision of a world where everyone "knows their<br /> place" and where the power of society will <em>slap you back<br /> into your place</em> if you forget.</p><p /><p> </p><p>They think this is their moment. And they are looking for openings<br /> to make big advances. Imagine if there is another incident like 9/11.<br /> How will people like Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza<br /> Rice exploit it? And what will the U.S. and the world look like if<br /> they have their way? From the commanding heights, in the White House,<br /> in Congress, in the military and in the Supreme Court—they are<br /> like the gangster who warns "We can do this the hard way, or we<br /> can do this the easy way."</p><p /><p> </p><h2>An Unacceptable Future</h2><p /><p> </p><p>After the State of the Union speech, it stood out how unopposed<br /> Bush’s program currently is within the power structure.</p><p /><p> </p><p>The Democratic leadership, of course, got their usual "moment<br /> of response." Who was the first speaker for the Democrats?<br /> Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, a conservative Mormon and supporter<br /> of the criminalization of abortion. This social conservative now<br /> heads the Democrats in the Senate!</p><p /><p> </p><p>With him was Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who<br /> argued against "slipping out the back door of Iraq" and<br /> demanded that Bush accelerate the creation of an Iraqi puppet<br /> army.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Who can imagine either of them leading any real opposition to the<br /> program Bush was laying out?</p><p /><p> </p><p>And yet, if you really listen to Bush’s speech and<br /> afterwords piece together what it means—it is clear. They are<br /> serious about all these changes, and the people need to be very, very<br /> serious too. They have their filthy values, and we need to fight for<br /> our values: internationalism, bold social experimentation, liberating<br /> social change, equality and choice for women, real eye-opening<br /> education, scientific critical thinking, and a whole culture of<br /> mutual support among people.</p><p /><p> </p><p>Clearly <em>millions</em> of people would be horrified to live in<br /> the world Bush envisions. And literally millions would help fight<br /> it—if they understood deeply what is at stake, and if they saw<br /> a way to actually resist, and if they got a living sense of a<br /> liberated new society that is worth fighting for.</p><p /><p> </p><div class="footer"><br /> <hr class="footer" /><br /> This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary<br /> Worker Online<br /><br /> <a href="<a href=">http://rwor.org</a><br />http://rwor.org">http://rwor.org<br /> /><br /> Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654<br /><br /> Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497<br /> </div><br /><br /><br /><p />

<p>It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face<br /> during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating<br /> to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear<br /> the fawning patter of the news media.</p> <p>In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how<br /> the "Union" (meaning the United States) is doing. In<br /> reality, the State of the Union speech is a "bully pulpit"<br /> where presidents build public support for their next actions.</p> <p>George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the<br /> <em>real</em> "State of the Union." Bush couldn’t<br /> mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants<br /> to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the<br /> invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He<br /> didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. "homeland" is<br /> divided between "two Americas"—half of which hates<br /> the sight of him.</p> <!--break--> <p>It was hard to sit still and watch his smug bully’s face<br /> during the February 2 State of the Union speech. It was infuriating<br /> to watch the standing ovations of the surrounding Congress, or hear<br /> the fawning patter of the news media.</p> <p></p> <p>In official traditions, the President tells Congress each year how<br /> the "Union" (meaning the United States) is doing. In<br /> reality, the State of the Union speech is a "bully pulpit"<br /> where presidents build public support for their next actions.</p> <p></p> <p>George W. Bush didn’t dare breathe a word of truth about the<br /> <em>real</em> "State of the Union." Bush couldn’t<br /> mention how most of the planet thinks he is a bloody cowboy who wants<br /> to rule like a new Roman emperor. He didn’t mention how the<br /> invasion of Iraq has turned into a brutal counterinsurgency. He<br /> didn’t discuss how bitterly the U.S. "homeland" is<br /> divided between "two Americas"—half of which hates<br /> the sight of him.</p> <p></p> <p>Could he mention how millions mutter about maybe moving to another<br /> country, or finding new and powerful ways to resist? No.</p> <p></p> <p>Bush didn’t even discuss the usual government balance sheet<br /> (for the obvious reason that the annual budget deficit is approaching<br /> <em>half a trillion dollars,</em> while he demands $100 billion more<br /> to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan).</p> <p></p> <p>No, this government is on a <em>faith-based</em> mission. Facts<br /> aren’t allowed to obscure the vision. Obstacles are just<br /> supposed to be bulldozed away, by brute force if necessary. And every<br /> policy speech of theirs has a chilling feel of Orwellian<br /> double-think.</p> <p></p> <p>Bush was puffed up during this speech by Iraq’s staged<br /> election-under-the-gun, which came to us distorted through the lens<br /> of an incredibly dishonest media. This election sham was offered as<br /> proof that (regardless of "errors") the U.S. is at least<br /> (somehow and supposedly) "doing some good in Iraq." In the<br /> audience of Bush’s speech, his conservative supporters dipped<br /> their fingers in purple ink and waved them around (in supposed<br /> "solidarity with Iraqi voters").</p> <p></p> <p>How much more honest it would be if they just dipped their hands<br /> in Iraqi <em>blood</em> and waved <em>that</em> around while Bush<br /> ranted.</p> <p></p> <p style="text-align: center;">*****</p> <p></p> <p><em><strong>Let’s look beneath the ugliness of it all and do<br /> some "reconnaissance on the enemy." Let’s dissect<br /> what this speech shows about where this government is actually<br /> planning to go. Three things jump out:</strong></em></p> <p></p> <ul> <li>First, Bush openly threatened Syria and Iran.</li> <p></p> <li>Second, he took aim at Social Security and proposed first steps<br /> toward its privatization.</li> <p></p> <li>And third, he made it clear that he will seek to end<br /> women’s legal right to choose abortion and appoint a new wave<br /> of judges to get this accomplished.</li> <p> </p></ul> <p></p> <h2>King of the World</h2> <p></p> <p>The President of the United States stood in front of Congress like<br /> an emperor announcing what other governments must do—Saudi<br /> Arabia must do this, Egypt must do that, Syria must heel. He openly<br /> encouraged the overthrow of Iran’s government and pledged<br /> support for that effort.</p> <p></p> <p>In Iraq, Bush had said he was invading because of WMDs—but<br /> there were no WMDs. He accused Iraq of "links" to<br /> "terrorists"—but there were no links. There was<br /> supposedly a threat to the U.S. "homeland"—but there<br /> was no such threat.</p> <p></p> <p>What very very short memories we are expected to have! Because<br /> now, in this speech, we are suddenly <em>back to Square One</em>.<br /> Bush’s justification for threatening Iran? They may be<br /> <em>trying</em> to get WMDs. They <em>supposedly</em> back unnamed<br /> "terrorists." (Déjà vu all over again!)</p> <p></p> <p>So here we are: Justifications for war blended into each other,<br /> until it is clear that, for the U.S. government, no justification is<br /> needed.</p> <p></p> <p>And the underlying, unstated logic behind this? The U.S. is making<br /> an aggressive grab for world domination, and everyone (especially the<br /> strategic Middle East countries and the potential rival powers of the<br /> European Union) is simply supposed to fall in line.</p> <p></p> <p>Bush’s speech was surrounded by more explicit and more<br /> ominous threats from his government. Vice President Cheney openly<br /> said that Israel might now launch targeted strikes on Iran. The new<br /> Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice refused to say there would not be<br /> war, explaining that Bush was not taking "any option off the<br /> table." In other words, Iran (and other countries in the world)<br /> now live under a permanent, unrelenting threat of U.S. attack.</p> <p></p> <p><strong>Let’s talk about values for a moment:</strong> All<br /> this naked imperialism is supposed to be considered normal. A simple<br /> and mindless equation is used: The U.S. government is for<br /> "freedom" and backed by "god"—and so<br /> whatever this government does, or wants, or demands is righteous.</p> <p></p> <p>And no one is supposed to think too deeply whether all this<br /> negates the rights of other nations, whether it disregards what their<br /> people really want, whether people ruled by the U.S. are ever really<br /> "free," whether there really is a "god" backing<br /> colonial crusades, or whether what <em>really is being imposed</em><br /> isn’t just the sordid interests of U.S. capitalism.</p> <p></p> <h2>The Last Shred of Security</h2> <p></p> <p>Bush has declared war on Social Security.</p> <p></p> <p>Some things need to be pointed out before we can get to the heart<br /> of what that means:</p> <p></p> <h3>First, his targeting of Social Security is a sign of the<br /> extremism of the forces who now rule the U.S.</h3> <p></p> <p>Social Security was set up to guarantee a minimum survival pension<br /> for much of the population and to guarantee that disabled people and<br /> orphans aren’t simply abandoned.</p> <p></p> <p>Nearly 48 million people currently receive Social Security<br /> benefits (with average benefits of $11,000 a year). Without Social<br /> Security, it is estimated that half of older people would find<br /> themselves in desperate poverty—unable to cover the bare<br /> necessities of life. Though it is shamefully inadequate, Social<br /> Security is popular (and even beloved) because for many working<br /> people it is the only pension they have.</p> <p></p> <p>And so Social Security has been considered "the third<br /> rail" of U.S. politics—meaning that if a politician even<br /> lays a finger on it, it could be political death.</p> <p></p> <p>Bush (and his charging crew of right wingers) clearly dare to go<br /> there—with hatchets in their hands.</p> <p></p> <h3>Second, Bush’s program has nothing to do with<br /> solving a "crisis in Social Security."</h3> <p></p> <p>For decades, reactionary forces have deliberately<br /> "under-funded" all the social institutions and programs<br /> they wanted to destroy (including public education, public housing<br /> and Social Security). Then, as a program like that grows bankrupt and<br /> frustratingly inadequate—they say "it isn’t<br /> working" and demand its abolition through privatization.</p> <p></p> <p>Privatized education (like school vouchers, etc.) leads to<br /> formalizing a class-tiered and segregated educational system, filled<br /> with religious ignorance.</p> <p></p> <p>When horrific public housing gets torn down, hundreds of thousands<br /> are driven into homelessness.</p> <p></p> <p>When welfare was gutted, many more impoverished women were driven<br /> into prostitution. And whole communities are driven deeper into the<br /> "faith-based" embrace of fundamentalist churches.</p> <p></p> <p>Social Security is now grossly underfunded. And their solution?<br /> Bush’s plans don’t solve Social Security’s funding<br /> problems. He never discussed funding at all. His plan was for the<br /> "partial privatization" of the system—shifting some<br /> of the tax money of younger people into the stock market. And this is<br /> no solution at all: and will increase the insecurity of<br /> people’s lives and retirement.</p> <p></p> <h3>Third, Bush’s approach to Social Security is to turn<br /> different sections of the people against each other, and against the<br /> remaining national social net.</h3> <p></p> <p>After working their lives away, people need to be cared<br /> for—and guaranteed dignified, meaningful, and secure lives<br /> <em>even after they are too old or sick to work.</em> This has<br /> <em>never</em> happened under this capitalist system, and even the<br /> flimsy, tattered social net that <em>does</em> exist is now under<br /> frontal attack.</p> <p></p> <p>But as Social Security stumbles toward bankruptcy, the discussion<br /> of its problems are used to fuel a raw mood of dog-eat-dog. Bush<br /> argues that since old people are now living longer, they are an<br /> unfair burden on coming generations of young people. And so young<br /> people (supposedly) should look at their narrowest selfish<br /> interests—and demand that more of <em>their</em> retirement<br /> taxes should go straight <em>to themselves</em> (personally, as<br /> individuals).</p> <p></p> <p>In the most twisted argument seen in a loooooooong time, Bush<br /> actually says (in his current speaking tour) that Black people should<br /> support Social Security privatization because they die earlier than<br /> white people, and fewer Black men make it to retirement age. Is he<br /> arguing that efforts must quickly be made to guarantee decent health<br /> care for Black people so they don’t die needlessly? No! His<br /> argument is that Black people should help him dismantle Social<br /> Security, <em>because (supposedly) fewer of them live to get<br /> it!</em></p> <p></p> <p>(Not only is his argument twisted, it is also a lie. For about 20<br /> percent of retired people, Social Security is the only income. But<br /> that number is 38 percent among Black and Hispanic elderly people.<br /> Attacking Social Security means attacking the most poor, and not<br /> surprisingly that includes many Black people.)</p> <p></p> <h3>Fourth, Bush’s plan of partial privatization is only<br /> a first step.</h3> <p></p> <p>The goal here is to create the <em>political conditions</em> for<br /> abolishing universal social protections. Once younger people invest<br /> part of their social security tax in the stock market, once the<br /> unified system is broken up, then (and this is openly stated in<br /> conservative think-tanks) the larger "political consensus"<br /> backing the social net is shattered. <em>These are plans to<br /> ultimately end a universal, guaranteed national pension<br /> system!</em></p> <p></p> <p>Now, let’s look at the bigger picture. This destruction of<br /> Social Security is part of a larger move to actually rewrite the<br /> social contract of U.S. capitalism and to create a so-called<br /> "ownership society."</p> <p></p> <p><strong>Let’s talk about values:</strong> The conservative<br /> Republican forces now in power want a society without <em>a hint</em><br /> of social solidarity or the "entitlements" of guaranteed<br /> mutual support. They want a society where fear and insecurity<br /> reinforce conformity and obedience, and where an individual’s<br /> only refuge is the traditional family and the traditional church.</p> <p></p> <p>They want a world that glorifies "personal<br /> responsibility"—which really means that the injustices of<br /> society can be blamed on supposed moral flaws (and<br /> "irresponsibility") of those who are suffering.</p> <p></p> <p>In short, they want a society where poverty comes without dignity<br /> or entitlements, and where wealth comes without guilt.</p> <p></p> <p><strong>And let’s talk about the material underpinnings of<br /> those ugly values:</strong> They <em>want</em> to guarantee that the<br /> United States has an ever-growing lower tier of desperate people who<br /> live in fear of falling. Their whole program is fundamentally rooted<br /> in capitalism and in the capitalist <em>need</em> for more and more<br /> people willing to work for less and less—to guarantee the<br /> global competitiveness of their "homeland."</p> <p></p> <h2>Rewriting the Basic Law</h2> <p></p> <p>Bush’s speech laid out a tight and specific battle plan for<br /> winning "the culture wars"—by using presidential<br /> powers to remake the legal system. Bush said he will appoint judges<br /> who don’t "legislate from the bench," and he demanded<br /> that the Senate’s Republican majority have a free hand to<br /> approve his nominees. And he called for passing a constitutional<br /> amendment against gay marriage.</p> <p></p> <p>To understand what all this means, let’s list the major<br /> Supreme Court decisions that conservatives are talking about when<br /> they denounce "judges legislating from the bench":</p> <p></p> <p><em>Brown vs. Board of Education</em> (1954, which dismantled<br /> official state segregation of schools)</p> <p></p> <p><em>Griswald v. Connecticut</em> (1965, which said states could<br /> not make it illegal to sell birth control)</p> <p></p> <p><em>Loving v. Virginia</em> (1967, which overturned state laws<br /> forbidding interracial marriage)</p> <p></p> <p><em>Roe v. Wade</em> (1973, which made abortion legal across the<br /> U.S.)</p> <p></p> <p><em>Lawrence v. Texas</em> (2003, which legalized gay sexual acts<br /> anywhere in the U.S.)</p> <p></p> <p>Bush and his supporters uphold a legal doctrine called<br /> "strict constructivism"—which means that judges can<br /> only uphold those rights that are literally written into the<br /> Constitution. Large parts of the modern legal tradition, like the<br /> "right to privacy" and "separation of church and<br /> state," are not literally written into the words of the<br /> Constitution.</p> <p></p> <p><strong>Once again, let’s talk about values:</strong> What<br /> guides this whole program is the fundamentalist view that people are<br /> basically sinful, that their behavior and choices need to be confined<br /> and sharply limited. It is a view that says Right and Wrong are<br /> absolute and determined by fundamentalist Christian teachings on<br /> "god"—and therefore people should <em>not</em> have<br /> wide "choices" about their own lives or about the direction<br /> of society itself.</p> <p></p> <p>Bush justified his plans by talking about "building a culture<br /> of life"—which is a code word for attacking women’s<br /> right to choose. And it is revealing that, in the same speech, he<br /> talked about how he plans to reform the federal death penalty<br /> system—which is a plan for getting the federal government<br /> <em>back in the business of executing prisoners!</em> What a<br /> wonderful "culture of life"!</p> <p></p> <h3>Let’s talk about the bigger picture:</h3> <p></p> <p>The right wing calls all this "culture wars"—and<br /> they really mean "wars." At the end, they want a victory<br /> where their enemies are flattened and they have the power to remake<br /> the U.S. (and much of the world!).</p> <p></p> <p>Specifically they want to <em>impose</em> a reactionary and<br /> traditional view of patriarchy on family and sexuality, including<br /> especially on women and teenagers. They want to end abortion and much<br /> more: they want to sharply restrict birth control, sex information,<br /> tolerance of gay sexuality, and social experimentation. They want<br /> "cultural diversity" to disappear under a tidal wave of<br /> conformity and censorship. Many of Bush’s Christian fascist<br /> hard- core supporters openly see their goals in theocratic<br /> terms—they want the harsh morality and rules of their religion<br /> to be the law-of-the-land.</p> <p></p> <p>It is a vision of a world where everyone "knows their<br /> place" and where the power of society will <em>slap you back<br /> into your place</em> if you forget.</p> <p></p> <p>They think this is their moment. And they are looking for openings<br /> to make big advances. Imagine if there is another incident like 9/11.<br /> How will people like Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza<br /> Rice exploit it? And what will the U.S. and the world look like if<br /> they have their way? From the commanding heights, in the White House,<br /> in Congress, in the military and in the Supreme Court—they are<br /> like the gangster who warns "We can do this the hard way, or we<br /> can do this the easy way."</p> <p></p> <h2>An Unacceptable Future</h2> <p></p> <p>After the State of the Union speech, it stood out how unopposed<br /> Bush’s program currently is within the power structure.</p> <p></p> <p>The Democratic leadership, of course, got their usual "moment<br /> of response." Who was the first speaker for the Democrats?<br /> Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, a conservative Mormon and supporter<br /> of the criminalization of abortion. This social conservative now<br /> heads the Democrats in the Senate!</p> <p></p> <p>With him was Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who<br /> argued against "slipping out the back door of Iraq" and<br /> demanded that Bush accelerate the creation of an Iraqi puppet<br /> army.</p> <p></p> <p>Who can imagine either of them leading any real opposition to the<br /> program Bush was laying out?</p> <p></p> <p>And yet, if you really listen to Bush’s speech and<br /> afterwords piece together what it means—it is clear. They are<br /> serious about all these changes, and the people need to be very, very<br /> serious too. They have their filthy values, and we need to fight for<br /> our values: internationalism, bold social experimentation, liberating<br /> social change, equality and choice for women, real eye-opening<br /> education, scientific critical thinking, and a whole culture of<br /> mutual support among people.</p> <p></p> <p>Clearly <em>millions</em> of people would be horrified to live in<br /> the world Bush envisions. And literally millions would help fight<br /> it—if they understood deeply what is at stake, and if they saw<br /> a way to actually resist, and if they got a living sense of a<br /> liberated new society that is worth fighting for.</p> <p></p> <div class="footer"> <br /> <hr class="footer" /> This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary<br /> Worker Online <p> <a href="&lt;a href=">http://rwor.org</a><br /><a href="http://rwor.org">http://rwor.org</a>"&gt;<a href="http://rwor.org">http://rwor.org</a><br /> /&gt;<br /> Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654</p> <p> Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497 </p></div> <p> </p><p></p>