Take A Trotskyist To Tea

The opening sentence of Jeff Mackler's article in Socialist Action displays all the faults of Leftist thinking.

In the old days—very old days like the last Great Depression of 1929—most people understood the term “economic stimulus” to mean some form of government investment in the economy aimed at directly producing jobs for working people through various kinds of public works programs.

He actually believes that government make-work programs create jobs. They do nothing of the sort--all they do is redistribute the jobs from one place to another. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does make Paul richer, but it makes Peter poorer. Taxing money away from thriving businesses to pay for corrupt, politically-inspired, welfare projects makes society poorer.

The Tea Party understands this. We believe that government is an expense, not a benefit. Prisons, police departments, firemen, welfare social workers, tax collectors, soldiers and spies all cost money. They may be a necessary expense--I wouldn't want to live in a world without policemen, public streets, or parks--but they create no wealth.

Workers create wealth when they produce quality products at affordable prices that consumers want to buy. I can buy a car from honorable people like Gregg Shotwell or Diane Feeley but I can't buy a public street, a welfare case load, or the 5th Armored Division. Accordingly, we Tea Party types are pretty sanguine about the government shutdown. In particular, if non-essential government employees are laid off, so much the better. Why are we hiring non-essential employees in the first place?

Mr. Mackler cites an example of economic progress as if it were a great evil. About the newly booming American textile industry he writes

“This wasn’t some patriotic quest,” [textile CEO] Winthrop insisted. And indeed it wasn’t. Like all capitalists his loyalty was to the dollar, not to the working class. In addition to the savings in transportation costs, the turnaround time, and other technical matters, what interested this capitalist the most was the fact that, according to the The Times, “wages aren’t that much more overseas.” 

Mr. Mackler doesn't understand that the savings are sought to compete with rivals, and therefore to lower prices for consumers. The extra money will not be pocketed as additional profit for Mr. Winthrop. Instead it makes us all richer.

When American capitalism fails to make us all richer, Mr. Mackler calls that a crisis, and perhaps rightly so. But his solution is odd--he proposes instead that we go the full North Korea. Now it is true--North Korea has no economic crises, mostly because it has no economy. Their goal, far from making everybody richer, is to maximize poverty. That's a completely different goal from that most Americans share.

David Finkel, over at Solidarity, publishes an article with an extended update entitled Is the Ship of State Headed for a Shutdown? This gets into the weeds about the shenanigans in Congress in a way that smacks of reformism. Instead of demanding the full North Korea, Mr. Finkel is simply asking that the government stay open so that people can continue to receive benefits. In other words, he's sane.

The downside of sanity is that the article no longer reads like a Trotskyist wrote it. Instead it comes across as just another Progressive point of view, very similar to what you'd read in The Nation or In These Times. It's boring. And like those journals, he takes swipes at the Tea Party.

Here are some examples:

Defunding “Obamacare” or delaying it a year (a delay which could obviously be repeated over and over) would cripple the Obama presidency beyond hope of repair. That’s precisely why the racist-fuelled Tea Party is forcing the issue, and why the Democrats cannot give in even if they’re ready to viciously slash Social Security and Medicare for decades to come.

And,

The Tea Party was largely created by a section of the ruling elite--the billionaire Koch brothers and the like--for this purpose, exploiting the paranoia and racism among white Americans as leverage against the Obama presidency.

A commenter with the handle Redchuck4 (yes, unlike other Trotskyists, Solidarity allows comments) takes issue with Mr. Finkel, remarking that

The Tea Party, while supported by political outliers in the capitalist class like the Koch brothers, is a political phenomena that is INDEPENDENT of capital. It reflects the growing racist/nativist, anti-working class hysteria of sections of the white middle class-- both professionals and managers and small business people. Again, while capital may find these yahoos useful in their battle against working people at home and abroad, the Tea Party has and is often on capital's "wrong-side."

Now I consider the accusation racist to be a slander--it's just an epithet. But lets take it seriously for a minute and see where it gets us.

All political movements are tribal to some degree. Sharing the same political platform implies speaking the same language and sharing the same culture. American whites and Blacks are different tribes and therefore belong to separate political parties. This is similar to English and French Canadians or Muslim and Hindu Indians, etc. So I can agree with Redchuck4 about the ethnic and "class" characterization of the Tea Party, though I'd probably phrase it a bit differently. But that doesn't mean that we're racist any more than the fact that 90% of Blacks vote Democratic means that they're racist.

The Tea Party is not about racial purity. Instead it is a radical Libertarian group. In the cause of Liberty, we believe in limited government and Constitutional order. Congress (and hence the federal government) deserves no more power than that delimited by the Constitution. The extension of the federal government into things like health care is very much against the spirit of the Constitution, John Roberts' messy compromise notwithstanding. In our federal system the states are sovereign, and if government has a role in health care (a separate debate), then it has to come from the states.

Though few Blacks are members of the Tea Party, those that are have played a very important role. Two of our leading theoreticians, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, are African-American. Tea Partiers have adopted Martin Luther King as one of their own (see here). And all of us thrilled to the message of Herman Cain, who used the beautiful, eloquent and musical language of his culture in the cause of Liberty. I actually contributed money to his campaign, and was sorely disappointed when he turned out to be a deeply flawed candidate. There is the more recent example of Paul McKinley.

Indeed, cultural barriers notwithstanding, African-Americans should be the strongest supporters of the Tea Party. Who has suffered more from government tyranny than they? Who benefits more from strict equality under the law? Who suffers most from absurd nanny-state regulations that make many Black occupations illegal? (E.g., it's illegal to operate a Jitney cab without a city license, or braid hair without a beautician's diploma.)

So if you believe in Liberty, join us. And then, please invite a Trotskyist out for a cup of tea.

Further Reading:

• Book Review: Filthy Rich in Rising Asia
• Why Trotskyists Don't Like Las Vegas
• Liberals!

The Dream 50 Years On

Note: School has started, and the publication schedule for this blog has to change. Expect new posts on Thursday and Sunday for the Fall Semester.

Yesterday President Obama gave an interview to the PBS Newshour, and among the topics was the 50th anniversary commemoration of the 1963 March On Washington. While I don't agree with Mr. Obama on very much, he's clearly a very smart man. If you accept his premises and his values, then most of what he says makes sense. It's internally consistent.

Two remarks grated. First, he indirectly slandered Republicans. In an answer to a question as to why people oppose his policies, Mr. Obama cited a list. The first item is a criticism, which while I disagree with it, is an arguable point. The second item, on the other hand, impugns the motives of the people who disagree with him, presumably Republicans.

And I think the second element to that argument that has been made, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, is that government has hurt middle-class families or hurt white working-class families, because, you know, pointy-headed bureaucrats in Washington are just trying to help out minorities or trying to give them something free.

I think this seriously misrepresents the Republican point of view, and Mr. Obama should know better.

The second grating item is when he was asked how he felt about being on the podium during the 50th Anniversary commemoration.

Well, there were a couple of things I was thinking. Certainly leading up to the speech, I was thinking that you generally should not try to follow one of the two greatest speeches in American history – (chuckles) – because it puts a little pressure on you.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but the man clearly thinks very highly of himself. It sounded like he thought he'd just given the third most important speech in American history. Much better is Lincoln's modesty, "the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." Like Lincoln, Obama should have put himself to the side.

So the second half of the Newshour was about yesterday's commemoration, including Obama's oratory. I turned it off, went upstairs, and instead watched the original I Have A Dream clip on Youtube.

It is a magnificent speech, and it still brings tears to my eyes even after all these years. I was 11 years old at the time, though interested in politics even at that tender age. But my parents thought television was the devil's own, so I don't think I actually watched the speech until months or even years later. So the full power and import of MLK's words escaped me at the time. The speech is beautifully written, and delivered with flawless skill. The man definitely knew his way around a pulpit.

He draws on two sacred texts--the Declaration Of Independence, and the Old Testament. The first is the foundation of my political faith, as it is for millions of Americans. And regardless of one's religion, it is hard not to be moved by the verse (Amos 5:24) "but let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!"

Fifty years on, it's not just the power of King's words that move. It is also his great courage, both moral and physical. Martin Luther King wasn't just an orator, but also a hero.

There is another story of heroism from that time that also moves me to tears whenever I think about it. Some years ago, on business, I spent a day on the campus of North Carolina A&T State University, a historically Black college in Greensboro. On that campus is a statue of four young men--they were freshmen in 1960--18 years old.

Those young men did not grow up in Hawaii, nor did they attend an elite, private high school. No--they were from the wrong side of the tracks--poorly educated, unread, untraveled, unpossessed of critical thinking skills. In those days polite people would have called them colored boys. Today we might call them ghetto kids.

So here's what those 18-year-old guys did not do. They didn't take a brick and heave it through the window of the local Woolworth's store. That would've been pretty satisfying and it surely is what most ghetto punks would've done. Indeed, that's more or less what my middle-class generation--ten years later--did in protest against the Vietnam war.

No, what they did instead was a miracle. They walked into Woolworth's, sat down at the lunch counter and each ordered a cup of coffee. They weren't allowed to be served at the Whites Only counter, so they sat there peacefully until the store closed, and then they left. Their act of courage was subsequently imitated across the South.

Imagine, instead, if they'd thrown the brick. Think of what would've followed--the riots, the pogroms, the relentless search for "terrorists." We wouldn't be commemorating MLK's speech today--we'd still be fighting that war. That dire outcome was prevented by the uncanny wisdom, stunning self-discipline, and enormous moral courage of four ghetto kids.

These four young men are heroes of highest order. America can be very proud, and very, very grateful. They deserve their statues, and much more besides.

The Greensboro 4 have gone on to lead honorable but undistinguished lives. One heroic act is enough for a lifetime--it's more than most of us can muster. I was a Trotskyist when I was 18--no heroism there. Like most of us, President Obama has never been a hero. Compared to Joe McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr. (Jibreel Khazan), Franklin McCain and David Richmond, Mr. Obama is a moral pipsqueak. That's why I refused to listen to his speech.

Leftists accuse the Tea Party of hypocrisy when we claim Martin Luther King and the Greensboro boys as our own. But why? Like MLK, we draw inspiration from Thomas Jefferson's immortal words. Both MLK and the Greensboro boys demanded the right to be served at lunch counters, and in hotels and motels--in other words, the right to be consumers like the rest of us. If there is a more important free market principle, I certainly don't know what it is. This is a 100% Tea Party program.

But unlike MLK, or at least his latter-day heirs, the Tea Party also reads the second half of the Declaration of Independence. That's the boring part, containing the long litany of grievances against the Crown. While the emotional impact of that list has faded with time, the resolve to prevent tyranny on this continent is forever enshrined in the Constitution. Jim Crow was not so much an act of a racism (though it was that, too), but rather an act of unconstitutional government tyranny.

Of all people, Blacks should honor the Constitutional guarantees of individual rights and the protection of minorities. Many, like Herman Cain and Paul McKinley have gotten the message. The natural political home for Black people is, in fact, the Tea Party.

Please join us.

Further Reading:

• Thomas Jefferson & Political Correctness
• Liberals!
• Free Trade Or Foul

63rd & Halsted

When I was in the Socialist Workers Party, back in the early 70s, we used to go on Saturday morning Militant sales to the neighborhood shopping center at 63rd & Halsted, the heart of the Englewood neighborhood. Some of you may remember Pearl Chertoff--she accompanied me on many of those outings. We did this year round, but I remember it being very cold and windy, as if it were always January.

Many 20-year-olds have done stupider things than sell Militants at 63rd & Halsted, but few have done anything sillier. Folks must've thought I just stepped out of a Monty Python skit. I cringe at the memory, and have not told my wife or children about it. I was a lousy newspaper salesman. I think in two hours I'd sell three or four papers at 25 cents each--hardly enough to cover gas or car fare, even in those days.

In my old age I'm a bit more tolerant of my former self. However silly the reason, and unlike my children, I at least have spent some time in a poor, Black neighborhood. I know more than they do about poor places. So in that spirit, let me tell you briefly about what happened to me in Englewood.

• Nobody called me "honky," or any other nasty name.
• Nobody called me a "dirty Commie," even though I was both.
• Nobody robbed me, or tried to rob me.
• Nobody hassled me or threatened me.
• Nobody slashed my tires.
• Nobody tried to sell me drugs.
• Nobody joined the Stupid Socialist Workers Party.

In short, my time at 63rd and Halsted was boring. The people were invariably polite and friendly. I think the few who actually bought a paper did so more out of charity than anything else. For they were a big-hearted people with friendly smiles, who were much more generous toward me than I was toward them.

I drove by the corner a few years later--must have been mid-80s--and found that all the stores were abandoned and boarded up. I haven't been back since, but I doubt it's gotten better. Englewood has earned a new status as the murder capital of America. This is really sad.

What brings this to mind is the Paul McKinley for Congress campaign. In his intro video, Mr. McKinley says "I believe in prosperity." Well, I can just hear his critics scoff. Doesn't everybody believe in prosperity? they ask. How trite can you get.

No, everybody does not believe in prosperity. In fact, among the political class ("The Machine" in Mr. McKinley's Chicago-style formulation) few people believe in prosperity.

• Those numskulls who fought for a 9% sales tax certainly don't believe in prosperity. No wonder all those stores closed.
• The folks who think schools exist for the benefit of their patronage employees instead of for children don't believe in prosperity.
• The people who spent 30 years fighting Walmart definitely don't believe in prosperity. I hear Walmart finally opened up at 87th & the Dan Ryan. I certainly hope that's true. They certainly got no help from the patronage-driven, anti-prosperity crowd.
• The Sinaloa drug gangs, who decided they'd rather fight it out in the streets of Chicago than in Juarez. Where ever they fight, they don't believe in prosperity.
• Mayor Emanuel, who at very least is too much of a coward to take on the gangster/patronage interests who don't believe in prosperity. I guess they don't call him "The Godfather" for nothing.

So Mr. McKinley is unique among Chicago pols, which is why this webpage endorses him enthusiastically. Still, Mr. McKinley, you need to show us you believe in prosperity. I'll give you a couple of years after you take office, but then I'm going back to 63rd & Halsted, and I'm bringing my family with me. This is what I want to find:

•  A grocery store.
• A discount store, like the Dollar General that's in my neighborhood.
• A good place for lunch. And if they serve good fried chicken I'll be back in Englewood every chance I get.
• A local gift shop. For my immigrant wife, and even for my kids, a neighborhood like Englewood will be exotic. My wife will want to buy some souvenirs and local handcrafts, talk to some locals, and learn something.
• Kids on the street. I don't mean gangster kids. I mean little kids playing, or walking home from school.
• A cop on the corner.
• If you really want to put on the Ritz for us, put in a store like TJMaxx or something. There used to be a Goldblatt's there, so this isn't really impossible.

As I say, I'm bringing my wife and kids. I'm a big tipper, and my wife loves to shop. We'll spend money. But here's one better. The primary election is Tuesday a week from today. If you contribute to the McKinley for Congress campaign right now, then lunch is on me. Just take the Englewood train to the end of the line and I'll meet you at the station.

We believe in prosperity.

Campaign Contributions

I'm jinxed when it comes to campaign contributions. In 2008 I donated money to Rudy Guiliani--a couple weeks later he dropped out of the race. In 2012 I gave money to Herman Cain--and look what happened to him. I refused to contribute to the Romney campaign, partly because he was so uninspiring, but mostly because I wanted him to win.

Anyway, I'm trying it one last time--I just contributed to a Republican running for Jesse Jackson Jr's seat in Chicago. His chances of winning are about zero, and I'm probably not helping any. But I can't resist. I'm a sucker for courageous people who struggle against long odds and try to do good in the world. After my recent post about Mumia Abu Jamal, this guy is just a breath of fresh air. Anyway--here's his Youtube introduction.

http://youtu.be/UITQ-YvVbS8

If you can send him a dollar or two you can't go too far wrong. And if by some fluke you live on Chicago's south side (I used to live in Hyde Park), then please get out the vote. His politics (which I totally agree with) are described more fully on his webpage, mckinleyforcongress.com.

Update: h/t LegalInsurrection

Update 2: Here's an even better video: http://youtu.be/1-5BzyrKX3c

Update 3: A follow-up post is here.