Where, for example, is our can-do spirit? Our fellow citizens sit stranded for days in New Orleans, mired in the stink of their own excrement, and we can’t get water and food to them. Last week Japan evacuated more than 300,000 people from coastal areas to evade a typhoon. No incompetence, panic, or disorder there.
Where is our myth of social mobility? Most of us stay stuck in the class we were born in. We’re working harder than ever before for less money. Those born in the ghetto have little chance of escape: they’re fated to die there.
Where is our myth of the individual? We have herded ourselves into special interests – minorities, Christians, homosexuals, teenagers, the right, the left, the rich, the poor – and snipe at each other from the comfort of our herds. We’d rather be labels than individuals. We’ve become the talking points of our group agendas instead of straight-talkers from our hearts.
Where is our happiness? As a nation we bicker, we call each other names, we seem unable to solve our problems.
Where is our myth of freedom? That, thank God, despite the Patriot Act, despite the strictures of the Christian Radicals against gay marriage, abortion and evolution, is still alive. Without it we would not be Americans. It’s the one reason I still smile in my sadness.
But overall, where are we now? We bestride the world stage like a blind elephant. We, who’ve always helped the world, today we cannot help ourselves. Mexico sends us food.
Instead of being solvent, we are in massive debt to the world. We are in massive debt to ourselves, too. Most of us live only a paycheck away from penury. Medical costs can wipe any of us out. And while the vast majority of us hang on by our fingernails, our rich are getting super-rich. CEO pay has sky-rocketed from 50 times the average hourly worker a generation ago to 500 times today, with no recognizable link between pay and performance (other countries don’t suffer from CEO greed; it appears to be a peculiar American problem). Katrina ripped the façade off our competence and exposed the underbelly of the American dream: it thrust in our faces the hard fact that 37 million Americans live in poverty in the richest nation on earth. One in five U.S. children is poor during the first three years of life, the time when brain development is the most crucial. In its 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers surveyed 15 infrastructure categories — roads, bridges, drinking water, public schools, etc. — and issued an overall grade of “D."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Georgio
excellent post but now I feel so sad .
2 - Nancy
Bravo, indeed. Poetic & powerful, not to mention sticking in lots of gut-wrenching truths. The rage is, how do we fix it? My guts want to rise up & make 1917 Russia look like a sunday school picnic. Is that what it will take: massacres of all the rich & overprivileged? Utter destruction of multinational corporations, even at the price of (perhaps) utter destruction of the national economy? Well, it couldn't get much worse, we don't have that much to lose anymore, most of us. I wish there were other possiblities less extreme & violent, but I begin to think that only something really, utterly cataclysmic will do.
3 - Georgio
Nancy thank you for having the guts to say the things that a lot of us feel needs to be said...where do we start though?
4 - Nancy
I don't know. I haven't fired a gun in years, and I can't run fast enough to catch anyone of these scumbags, anyway. Any good revolutionaries out there?
5 - 1Potato
I live in Corpus Christi TX. It's relatively poor, but everyone has a decent car, a decent home (a few percent are in the ghetto are, but even there the housing is a lot better than any third world country), plenty of food, movie theaters are packed, malls are packed.
Revolution? You want to kill people? Why not just leave. I thought you guys loved France. Canada's even closer, right? Don't liberals go to Canada when the going gets tough?
6 - Marty Thau
I'd like to see Dave Nalle talk his way out of this posting.
7 - adam
Dave Nalle likes to pick fights he thinks he can win. He has an unfortunate penchant for thinking Bush & Co are actually up to some good, although he can't point to a single thing good thing about them; all he can do is point to supposed bad things about his bugaboo "the left."
8 - red state
Let me get this straight.
Liberals lose an election er, make that 2 elections. They claim the elections were fixed. They fail to get the public to support thier perverted, degenerate left wing agenda so they try to get it passed through the courts with left wing groups like the aclu suing at the drop of a hat. Left wingers say it's the end of the world.
Hmmmm....
Evil capitalism huh... guess what, American corporations aren't made up of robots. They employ american citizens and ceo's aren't the only ones getting a piece of the pie. Me thinks maybe if you bitching whining pathetic liberals had tried a little bit harder you could be one of those "corporate shills" yourself taking home a fat paycheck. But you'd rather bitch about how hard life is and complain about how the governemnt isn't doing enough to take care of you.
You people are a joke. Capitalism and individualism is the name of the game in America... if you left wing malcontents don't liek it I suggest you make good on those promises you made during the election campaign to move to europe or canada. don't let the fucking doo hit you in the ass on the way out.
good riddance!
9 - Doug Hannan
A powerful and extremely moving essay. The rant by Red State proves your point precisely about the toxic divisiveness into which the US has sunk.
We have herded ourselves into special interests " minorities, Christians, homosexuals, teenagers, the right, the left, the rich, the poor " and snipe at each other from the comfort of our herds. We’d rather be labels than individuals. We’ve become the talking points of our group agendas instead of straight-talkers from our hearts.
It is even more disturbing to see your supporters eagerly embracing that quintessentially American solution of more violence.
Cry the beloved country indeed.
10 - red state
well doug, if the democratic party in this nation hadn't become so beholden to the vile interest groups that they have i wouldnt need to be partisan
who controls the left?
the aclu who will do anything to defend child molsters and murders and defends nambla, they also will do anything to make th emilitary look bad ie abu gharib
now. naral planned parenthood, intent on making profit off of infanticide and covering up for 20 something year old men who have sex with 14 year old girls
al sharpton jesse jackson two of the biggest race baiters in the nation who dont give a damn about thier own race but only themselves
i could go on and on but i don't have to the left is defeating themselves
no longer will they be able to advance thier perverted degenerate socialist agenda
11 - WTF
You are what you speak.
"Sadness. Pathos. Pity"
Terribly sorry.
12 - Doug Hannan
no longer will they be able to advance thier perverted degenerate socialist agenda
What do you mean by this statement exactly?
13 - Les Slater
This post is pessimistic and reactionary.
We will not move forward by looking to the past. We have to look at the past for lessons but not solutions. There were no utopias. We forget that we have come a long way since 1920. Things are much better now, especially if you are a Black, woman or worker. Progress is being made in the status of immigrants and gays too.
If New Orleans happened in 1920 it would have been little more than a great natural disaster. Understanding what happened to the extent we now do is significant progress. We should understand that and make the most use of this understanding. Katrina has opened many eyes. The myths stand bare with much less support. This is good. Don’t confuse myths with reality.
FDR and WWII were not what you claim they were either. The U.S. did not really come out of the depression until war spending put many people back to work.
Who was FDR and what was WWII? FDR, like many of his wealthy compatriots, saw no inherent evil in fascism. FDR even refused to accept Jews fleeing Hitler.
The social gains that we won in the 30’s were the direct response of the government to the rise in labor struggles and their successes, not something FDR gave to us benevolently.
The U.S. did not declare war until Japan attacked Pear Harbor. It was really the U.S. that provoked this by cutting off Japan from access to oil. This got the expected response.
Now what was WWII itself? A big part of the reason for delay was that there was the hope that both Germany and the Soviet Union would be sufficiently weakened the U.S. could come in and defeat both. It did not work out that way. If the U.S. did not weigh in the Soviet Union would have beaten Germany and gained much western European territory.
WWII was also an opportunity for the colonies to throw off their imperialist masters. Much of this happened. But we can see the attitude of the allies by looking at the example of Viet Nam.
The principle reason for WWII was for the re-division of the world’s resources and markets. That was the main reason for Germany breaking the Versailles treaty and re-arming. The U.S. was the winner, Britain was the looser, especially in the oil-rich Middle East.
As the German occupation collapsed, Europe was left in ruins. If the Soviet Union gave the word, Communist Parties in France, Italy, and Greece would have taken power. They backed off but poverty and social unrest were rampant. There was no guarantee that some of these governments wouldn’t fall even without a Soviet push. That’s where the Marshall Plan comes in. The U.S. thought that if there was not a massive infusion of capital Europe could be lost to the Soviet Union. It was neither free nor benevolent.
As far as the great democratic ideals of the U.S. were concerned, many Nazis were rescued and relocated throughout the world.
Now what about the cold war? The U.S. found that they were in no position after WWII to take on the Soviet Union militarily. The troops thought the Soviet Union was an ally and wanted to go home. This was also true in Asia where the U.S. had designs on China.
The Soviet Union getting the A-bomb also set back the U.S.’s continued war drive.
The main thrust of the cold war in the U.S. was a serious attack on democratic rights directed against the American population. That’s where ‘Under God’ came from. It wasn’t until the civil rights movement gained momentum and became a massive movement that much of the remnants of McCarthyism were really pushed back. The anti-war movement put the spear through the heart of most of what was left.
The Soviet Union’s collapse was due to internal problems. This was good. No longer pigs claiming to be socialist to put up with, but Reagan had nothing to do with it. Reagan also backed Apartheid, calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Any politician claims credit for good things on their watch and points elsewhere for bad things. Or they just apply some lies and spin.
What we are seeing now are the results of a deep and deepening economic crisis. Like leading up to the great depression and WWII, we are witnessing a brutal fight to see who can drain the most from the underdeveloped world. That’s what these wars and the current attacks on democratic rights are all about.
Resistance is spreading, including in this country.
Cheer up. Don’t be pessimistic or sad.
14 - Joey
"What we are seeing now are the results of a deep and deepening economic crisis. Like leading up to the great depression and WWII, we are witnessing a brutal fight to see who can drain the most from the underdeveloped world. That’s what these wars and the current attacks on democratic rights are all about"
How? Explain.
The underdeveloped world is not laying out any cash to advance wars and rumors of wars. South Africa, with a pre-1994 GDP of less than 1% is now at 3.5%, doesn't sound like much, but considering the hellish pit those people emerged from, it's becoming good footing.
I don't follow your logic.
Please amplify.
15 - 1Potato
Is this an alternate reality post?
The U.S is a great country.
Why do your lives suck so bad?
16 - 1Potato
Praising Reagan now? Liberals attacked Reagan during his presidency as much, if not more, that they do Bush. They hated him more because he was so popular.
Oh, here comes Les Slater to remind you that your supposed to hate Reagan. Les, even the Russians admitted that Reagan won the cold war. Russia suffered an internal collapse, true, but Reagan accelerated it.
17 - D L Ennis
Excellent write!
America is like a giant corporation that has been mismanaged for a long time, not just during the Bush administration. No, I’m not a big fan of Bush but I don’t think that everything can be blamed on him. There is no organization in this country.
Our cities run themselves and there are so many different ways, as well as so many different factors dictating how they will be run, and most are mismanaged. Our states, though, of course, much fewer in number are plagued by the same mismanagement.
If you had a company with many different departments and the supervisors ran things as they pleased and without uniformity lade down by the powers that be, even if a given department ran smoothly it would not necessarily jive with what every other department was doing; your finished product would be inferior to what it would be if the left hand and the right hand worked together. The product in this case is nation wide organization, and it is inferior to what it could and should be.
I hate the idea of the federal government having to much say so over what I do but there has got to be a way to coordinate every level of government, emergency contingency, and on and on. Our national machine needs to be fine-tuned and oiled.
D L
18 - Les Slater
“The underdeveloped world is not laying out any cash to advance wars and rumors of wars.”
One commodity that the world produces is gold. About $36b in 2004. The U.S. produces about 10% of that.
I know, $36b is not much, but that is just one commodity. Oil, and a whole host of other commodities are mostly produced in the underdeveloped world. The average labor cost is quite low. The fact that most of the world’s commodities are consumed by the developed countries represents an enormous transfer of wealth.
Cheap labor for manufacture of products not generally consumed in the producing nation (export platforms) is another side of this.
The transfer of such wealth from the underdeveloped to the developed is an economic fact. The resistance by peoples to getting the short end of the stick is politically noticeable especially in Latin America.
The U.S., for example, is very nervous about this. They like to conjure up troublemaking by Cuba and Venezuela as the root cause, but this is not the case at all.
The struggle for a better share of the wealth by the people that produce it has been going on long before Castro or Chavez. They are but examples of some of the gains in that struggle.
With Greenspan scared shitless, blowing bubbles, at least until he retires, the U.S. CAN NOT afford any hindrance to this wealth sucking or its magnitude.
Here you see “wars and rumors of wars”. And they are funding it.
19 - Luke
You can crush the government if you stop paying your taxes
20 - Les Slater
“Oh, here comes Les Slater to remind you that your supposed to hate Reagan.”
Who, me? I’m not advocating anyone hate Reagan, not that he doesn’t deserve it, but running around hating, especially Reagan, doesn’t solve anything.
“Les, even the Russians admitted that Reagan won the cold war.”
My guess is that you probably don’t have much respect for the opinions of the ‘Russians’. Why would you here? It does fit a comforting myth, but is not true.
The Soviet Union provided an important service to world capitalism. I mentioned this with respect to the fact that they could have taken power in Western Europe if they wanted to. They chose not to. Why? They did not want to confront the U.S. and they reasoned that there would be a showdown over the falling of Europe.
The cold war, besides being a war against democracy, was to keep the leadership of the Soviet Union from going too far to support revolutionary developments. They had a wretched history of doing just that.
The Soviets were full of bluster and denunciation of imperialism, but actually supported capitalism and capitalist governments. The CP in the U.S has been an example of this.
The Communist Parties throughout the world followed Moscow’s line on this. Revolutionary rhetoric, sellout actions. They were able to get away with this because it was put forward that the Soviet Union was the only pole to counter the U.S.
With the collapse of the Soviet bureaucracy, all that was gone. The Communist Parties throughout the world were no longer fooling anyone except a few old time Stalinist radicals.
What the U.S. had in its favor from this was gone. Do you see any benefit that the U.S. gained? Maybe some bragging rights, some huffin’ and a puffin’ by the likes of Reagan? Nothing concrete. It was, and is, the other way around.
The U.S. lost the cold war.
“Russia suffered an internal collapse, true, but Reagan accelerated it.”
No, the attempt by Russia to accommodate itself with capitalism did it. Reagan was just another two-bit politician that happened to be on duty at the time.
21 - 1Potato
Les writes:
What the U.S. had in its favor from this was gone. Do you see any benefit that the U.S. gained? Maybe some bragging rights, some huffin’ and a puffin’ by the likes of Reagan? Nothing concrete. It was, and is, the other way around.
The point was always to stop, or at least slow, global communism. It worked.
Les continues:
No, the attempt by Russia to accommodate itself with capitalism did it. Reagan was just another two-bit politician that happened to be on duty at the time.
Capitalism doomed Russia, not communism?
Isn't that, how shall I say, nuts?
22 - Les Slater
”The point was always to stop, or at least slow, global communism. It worked.”
How do you define communism? If you base your definition on the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, the ‘communism’ of latter-day Soviet Russia totally flunks. It had nothing to do with communism.
From the first few paragraph of Section II of the Communist Manifesto - PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS:
“In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.“
Why should we believe that someone is communist because they say so? The Stalinist leaders called themselves communist only to deceive. Their course was anti-working class to the core, both domestically and internationally.
The historic defeat of Stalinism puts communism back to the forefront of the class struggle. It was never totally suppressed by the Stalinist thugs.
The Cuban revolution is the first since 1917 that was not lead by the Stalinists. The Stalinist party in Cuba was part of the Batista regime when the revolutionary war by the July 26 movement was begun in 1956. The Stalinists were later to join but never were able to dictate the direction of the revolution.
Today in Latin America there is a struggle for liberation and power. Because of the collapse of the Stalinist parties and regimes there is no longer the same threat to derail these struggles that there once was. Communism is now stronger than it has been in eight decades. Ask Rumsfeld.
23 - annemarie
What about no myths at all? They are all fake. They are all make-up to hide the social injustice, the corruption, the poverty, the twisted moral. Your proposal of more social cohesion is very optimistic. The society is already far too individually-esthetic. It's all about what you feel, what you like, what you feel is morally right. There is no turning back this process. What would be your basis for more social cohesion? There can only be one, and that is (as much as I hate it) religion. But as religion is nowadays an individual thing that you can model according to your own taste, that won't work either.
I'm sorry but it is only gonna get worse, untill your country is bombed to bits or its economy collapses.
I wouldn't say you are pessimistic, you can only be accused of being naïve. But that comes with having ideals and vision.
I really hope that you Americans get you're act together and start thinking, for the first time, about where you want this worldsupremacy of yours to go. Cause right now it leading the whole world to destruction.
24 - Nancy
If you want to see an example of 'draining the most from the undeveloped world', check out the National Geographic issue on Africa, section towards the rear on oil co.s, etc. in various African nations: literally they drain the resources, and the people (the public) who should & do morally own these resources get nothing, because the multinationals, as usual, have paid off the corrupt pols at the top.
I've had to come to the conclusion, after quite a lot of data pileup over the years, that the problems endemic to the whole world these days are actually caused by these same multinational mega-corporations, which buy off the political leaders who should be safeguarding public interests (ha!) and then write laws & adjust enforcement to suit themselves, and which regard the world population as another resource to be exploited to the max with no responsibility or accountability on their part.
25 - Dave Nalle
Rarely have I seen such partisan negativism clothed in such soapy verbiage. It's like a platitude buffet featuring roast cliches at a hehorroid convention.
>>Where is our myth of the individual? We have herded ourselves into special interests " minorities, Christians, homosexuals, teenagers, the right, the left, the rich, the poor " and snipe at each other from the comfort of our herds. We’d rather be labels than individuals. We’ve become the talking points of our group agendas instead of straight-talkers from our hearts.<<
Given your relentless support of the political party which has directly supported this division of people into interest groups rather than individuals, this paragraph seems particularly ironic.
Most of us would rather NOT be labels instead of individuals. Most of us would especially rather not have government and our leaders treat us that way. Rather than addressing the needs of groups, government needs to focus on protecting the rights of individuals and letting them fill their own needs.
Until you grasp that basic concept, all of this fruity language means nothing.
Dave