Guilt, Necessity, and Solidarity
I was out with a friend last night talking about the usual oppression and societal injustice when she said that she liked how I wasn’t a guilty white man. This made me consider the difference between acting out of guilt, necessity, and solidarity. As far as I’m concerned, these are the three main motivators for any sort of social justice or humanitarian work. I do not think they overlap because they depend greatly on the activist’s position in society and view of that society.
Guilt, in my mind, is the weakest of the three motivators. Guilt is ultimately selfish. It does not serve the needs of the victim, but of the perpetrator. Let’s say my father used to be a Klansman, and I decided that once reaching adulthood and understanding the legacy I was inheriting that I would donate 15 percent of my salary to black charities. This would not be serving the true needs of the victims in this situation because I did not ask the victims what their needs were. I did not seek out the families that were directly harmed by my father, and I certainly didn’t engage in anti-racist work in my own family and larger community. I merely sent money to assuage my guilt.
Perhaps a more compelling example is progressive white supporters of President Obama. I can’t help but wonder if they really support his policies or if they are just too afraid, out of guilt, to criticize a black president. They might also be too afraid, out of insecurity, to criticize a man who is ultimately doing more for their community than he is for most blacks. But for the sake of argument, let’s just say that they do care about the larger black community in the United States. Is it not hypocrisy, perhaps even racism, to refuse to criticize a black man for pushing the same policies as his white, despised predecessor? Do they really think their reverence for a black man in the White House is going to make up for centuries of slavery, murder, rape, discrimination, imprisonment, and exploitation?
People who identity as oppressed — whether they be impoverished, of color, homosexual, or disabled — generally engage in so-called activism out of necessity. They are not in a position to simply don a business suit and join the ranks of the privileged. Many of these individuals did not have to learn about racism, classicism, sexism, or any other –ism in college; they experienced them firsthand. If they are to live healthy, safe, and equitable lives in the United States of America, they are obliged to organize or agitate in some way. They do not change causes the way people change clothes — as some white progressive-types do. They do not have this luxury.
Solidarity, I would argue, is the proper role for the privileged in relation to the oppressed or the underprivileged. This is not an easy concept to explain. It must be felt by the privileged person on a deeper level than guilt. The privileged person must understand that his personal suffering or forbearance means little to the underprivileged person’s liberation. He or she must understand that there is an oppressive system at work here that manipulates the oppressed and the oppressor alike and that the liberation of one is irrevocably tied to the liberation of the other. We, as the privileged, must not attempt to simply reach out and pull our underprivileged brothers and sisters up to our level. This is not enough, for we must also jump down from our pedestals. We must ultimately join them in the middle, for it is self-evident that the underprivileged becoming “white,” or privileged themselves, is not the answer. It is the privilege itself that separates us from each other and makes peace and justice impossible; it is not the color or even the centuries of exploitation.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Peace Movement's Progress
The Peace Movement's Progress
By David Swanson
The peace movement has made significant progress in the United States since its low point of late 2008, and just about everything anyone in it has done has been a contribution. If everyone keeps doing
what they're doing, and more of it, we might just end some wars,
eventually. But I think some techniques are working better than others,
and that pursuing the most strategic approaches would make victory
likelier sooner and longer-lasting when it comes.
I think the peace movement bottomed out in late 2008 for two reasons above all others. One was the election of a Democratic president. I wasn't around for Wilson, FDR, or LBJ, but my impression is that
electing Democratic presidents is often bad news for both peace and,
paradoxically, for the peace movement. But both can eventually recover.
The other reason was the unconstitutional and uncertain treaty that
Bush and Maliki created, requiring the complete end of the Iraq
occupation following three more years of it. The agreement actually
made this delay a year and a half, rather than three years, by making
the treaty breakable through a vote of the Iraqi people (the outcome of
which could not be doubted). However, that was denied to them. While
the US peace movement had always demanded an IMMEDIATE end to the war
in Iraq, and might have been expected to go on doing so, the
combination of a written deadline and the ascension of a Democrat to
the throne proved deadly, even as the occupation of Iraq continued and
that in Afghanistan escalated.
We now have a larger and more costly military, and larger and more costly wars -- costly in financial terms -- than when Bush was president. We have more troops in the field, more mercenaries in the
field, bases in more nations, a heightened use of drone strikes into
additional countries, new secret military forces in still other
nations, and greater war powers assumed by the president, including the
power to assassinate Americans, the more firmly established powers to
imprison without charge, rendition, and torture, and heightened powers
of secrecy.
So, why do I say we've made progress? Well, I said we've made progress from where we were in late 2008, at which point the downward trends I've just mentioned could be foreseen. We'd just elected a
president promising a larger military and an escalation in Afghanistan.
Since then, the U.S. public has turned dramatically from supporting to
opposing the war in Afghanistan and the President's handling of it. The
planned escalation in Kandahar has failed to get off the ground. Every
official governmental and non-governmental study has deemed the effort
in Afghanistan hopeless, pointless, catastrophic, or criminal. High
ranking whistleblowers have spoken out. The Pentagon has resorted to
wild claims of mineral wealth, as it flails about for new ways to
justify the war. And the blame game, surrounding the eventual
withdrawal, has begun; the general in charge has been dismissed. In
addition, the withdrawal dates that people associate with Iraq and
Afghanistan (out of Iraq by the end of 2011, beginning to get out of
Afghanistan by July 2011) are closer, meaning that outrage at their
violation is closer.
At the same time, counter-recruitment efforts in the United States have begun achieving real successes, forcing the closure of the Army Experience Center in Pennsylvania and denying recruiters students' test
data in Maryland. US troops have begun refusing illegal orders in
greater numbers, and a culture of troop resistance coffee houses near
US bases has been reborn. The economic slide in the United States,
while in no sense desirable, and hurting the ability of some of us to
be engaged in the movement, is opening people's eyes to the impact of
the war economy on the peace economy, and allowing coalitions to be
formed of groups that want to defund wars and the military plus groups
that want to fund everything else: healthcare, schools, jobs, green
energy, etc. Resolutions against war spending are being passed by
political parties, towns, cities, and labor councils. Cities are
putting cost of war counters on city hall. A coalition of peace and
social justice groups has been holding monthly vigils at congress
members' local offices, with significant local impact in dozens of
districts, even if less noticeable nationally than big annual marches.
During the past year and a half, numerous activist organizations and somewhat independent media outlets have shifted from supporting the war in Afghanistan to opposing it. By opposing it, they are not necessarily
lobbying to defund it or taking any other steps to resist it or educate
people about it, but they are officially opposed to it, meaning that
they are our untapped potential waiting to be put into action. And
numerous other groups, old and news, have to various degrees and in
various ways become active, opposing the wars, each in their own way,
and contributing to these kinds of results:
May-June 2009 - 51 Democrats vote against war funding when it's guaranteed to pass; 32 vote against it when it might fail.
Late June 2009 - 131 Democrats vote for the Pentagon to produce an exit strategy, any exit strategy, for Afghanistan.
March 2010 - 65 Democrats vote to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2010.
July 1, 2010 - Well over 40, at least 51, and possibly 90 or more (up from 32) Democrats refuse to vote for Afghan war escalation funding, even with pleasant unrelated legislation attached, forcing
House leadership to delay the bill for months and then maneuver it to
passage without a vote.
July 1, 2010 - 38 Democrats (up from 32, but similarly limited to the number Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow -- see below) vote against the Rule that effectively allows the funding bill to go forward toward
becoming law.
July 1, 2010 - 25 congress members vote to cut off all funding for the war in Afghanistan. 100 vote to fund only withdrawal. And 162 (up from 131, and for a strengthened amendment) vote to require the
president to present Congress with a National Intelligence Estimate on
Afghanistan and a withdrawal plan and completion date, and to require
that Congress vote by July 2011 "if it wants to allow the obligation
and expenditure of funds for Afghanistan in a manner that is not
consistent with the president's announced policy of December 2009 to
begin to drawdown troops by July 2011."
Two separate events in 2009 were combined into one in 2010. First, the funding vote was held in 2009, and the peace movement pushed for No votes hard. The White House and the House leadership were forced to
bribe and threaten congress members for weeks to keep the Democratic No
votes down to 32. Had they reached 39 the bill would have (at least in
its current form) failed, due to all the Republicans voting No because
of an unrelated measure packaged into it. It was easy to see that we
could get to 39 by the next "emergency" supplemental bill if we wanted
to work at it. The second event in 2009 was the vote on Congressman Jim
McGovern's proposal for an exit timetable. The peace movement worked
hard for this and won 131 Yes votes. This generated two separate
stories, and the two agendas did not come into conflict with each other.
In 2010 it was a different story. Congressman McGovern made his proposal for an exit timetable an amendment to the funding bill. So, some peace groups promoted yes votes on that amendment, some pushed for
No votes on the funding, and others did both. And the pressure for No
votes on the funding was felt by congress members whose constituents
were organized and active. Rep. Chellie Pingree was pressured hard in
Maine, and began to speak out for stopping the funding. She told
General Petraeus in a hearing that he was making us all less safe (even
if she did thank him three times for that "service"). And Congressman
Alan Grayson, in a move I don't recall ever having seen before, set up
a website for people to use in lobbying his colleagues to vote No on
the funding.
If the amendments had been held back for a later date and a second event, then what happened on July 1, 2010, might have looked a little different. Progressive congress members might not have accepted a
byzantine procedural maneuver that allowed the war escalation funding
to be sent back to the Senate without the House actually voting on it.
Or if such a procedure was tried, more of them might have voted No on
the Rule allowing it. Instead, almost all the committed war opponents
voted for the Rule that moved the funding along, with the double excuse
that it was only a Rule vote, not a real true policy vote, and they
were voting for it in order to have a chance to vote for good
amendments.
And what would have happened next, if this procedure had been rejected? I can't be sure, because I don't know every crazy trick to be found in House parliamentary precedents, but one distinct possibility
is that the Democratic leadership would have been forced to pass the
war escalation funding on its own with mostly Republican votes, and to
pass useful peaceful spending on its own with mostly Democratic votes.
The war funding would then have sailed through the Senate and been
signed by the President. The non-destructive spending would then have
passed the Senate if its leadership had fought hard enough and been
willing if necessary to throw out the filibuster rule. McGovern's exit
strategy bill could then have garnered its 162 votes the next week or
next month instead of being buried in the news of late-night funding
passage.
Why would this result have been any better than what we got?
Well, for one thing, it would have informed people that there was a war and that the war was being funded. My local right-wing Democrat voted No on the Rule and Yes on McGovern's amendment, but he voted No
on the Rule because of all sorts of other nonsense added into it. The
local media reported on his objection to the budgetary procedures
involved and never reported in any way that there had been any vote in
Congress related to the war. As far as my neighbors know, the wars fund
themselves.
Secondly, it would have identified who was pro-war and who was anti-war by their votes. Local activists in my town spent months demanding that our representative take a position on the war. He has
yet to do so, and if he can avoid it he never will. We can't hold
people accountable unless we know what they've done. Right now some
congress members are claiming they opposed the war by voting against
the Rule while others are claiming they opposed the war by voting for
it.
Thirdly, forcing the Democratic leadership to line up with the Republican caucus and against most of the Democrats on war votes would be educational for people who are unaware that their chief opponent
when lobbying their local Democrat for peace and justice is the
leadership of his or her party.
Fourth, the demand to stop funding the war comes from people. It's a demand we take to Congress, not one we pick up from Congress and try to explain to others. We can form huge coalitions with economic justice
groups around the demand to shift our spending from wars to jobs and
housing. We can't organize two kids and a dog from outside the peace
movement to join a coalition for an unspecified non-binding exit
timetable or a new National Intelligence Estimate. That doesn't mean
these are counterproductive demands. I would certainly support them on
any day of the year other than the day Congress is voting to fund the
wars. The problem is when one useful campaign unnecessarily interferes
with another.
Fifth, if we think of Congress as sending messages to the president who will make all the decisions as "the decider," I would rather have two events and send two messages. And the strongest message I can
imagine is this: "A growing number of House members have committed to
voting against any more war funding, no matter how much lipstick is
applied to it, and this group includes the majority of your party's
caucus, and people are organizing to keep these members in office and
vote the others out". Other, weaker messages could still be sent, and
sent more strongly, on another day.
Sixth, if we think of Congress as potentially resembling the creature defined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, as capable of actual action, not just rhetoric, then our goal becomes building toward
the day on which the House actually refuses any more funding for a war
it opposes. In order to think this way, we have to stop thinking
exclusively in terms of passing bills that then must pass the Senate
and the President. We have to also be able to think in terms of
blocking the passage of bills. For this we only need the House. We can
focus our attention on the House and stop petitioning the Senate and
the President. This gives us a lot more resources. Plus, we don't have
to antagonize president worshippers. Instead we can focus our demands
on House members. And we can insist on other forms of action from
Congress as well, such as oversight of wars involving subpoenas and
their enforcement and the threat of high level impeachments. The
strongest message a Congress can send to a president is, with all due
respect to many of my friends, not "We wish you would end the war some
day," but "We will expose any war crimes, and we hold the power of the
purse."
Seventh, while our ideal must be ending the current wars in whatever combination of approaches is most likely to succeed the fastest, we should also take an interest in ending wars in a manner that helps
prevent the next ones from beginning immediately. This means focusing
on the funding, and moving from the defunding of wars to the defunding
of the military and the empire of foreign bases, shrinking the machine
that creates the wars. And it means taking the power to initiate or
escalate or indefinitely continue wars away from presidents.
The peace movement in the US, organizationally, and much to its disadvantage, has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. We are, consequently, often instructed in the need to relate to congress
members on their terms, using their language, etc. One good friend of
mine is quite energized with the need to instruct us that the recent
vote on a Rule did not technically fund the war escalation, even while
readily admitting that the only way to stop that particular bill that
day (at least momentarily) was to vote No on the Rule. But there is
also a value to forcing congress members to speak our language. It is
not, after all, our job to represent them. Peace activists in Maine
made themselves so clear to Rep. Chellie Pingree that she was compelled
to vote against the Rule and understood immediately that its being
merely a Rule vote would constitute no excuse whatsoever. Peace
activists in some parts of Tennessee and Pennsylvania (who may have a
harder base to work with) did not do as well, as illustrated by this
passage from the Hill describing the July 1, 2010, vote on the Rule:
"Party leaders were forced to hold open the vote for several minutes, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could be seen huddling with Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) and Paul Kanjorski (Penn.), the last
Democratic holdouts. Both cast 'yes' votes to push the motion over the
top. When it was clear the measure had passed, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Ariz.) switched her vote from 'yes' to 'no.' The final total was
215-210, with 8 lawmakers not voting. Cohen told The Hill earlier in
the week that he was disinclined to support a war funding bill after
bowing to pressure from party leaders who needed him to switch his vote
from 'no' to 'yes' a year ago."
Almost no one in Maine, including the leading activists had any idea what a self-executing Rule is. But Congresswoman Pingree had a good idea what was expected of her. We have to take our message to Congress,
not the reverse. Our message, the one that comes from our people, the
one that builds coalitions with our allies in the broader justice
movement is: Stop the funding!
By David Swanson
The peace movement has made significant progress in the United States since its low point of late 2008, and just about everything anyone in it has done has been a contribution. If everyone keeps doing
what they're doing, and more of it, we might just end some wars,
eventually. But I think some techniques are working better than others,
and that pursuing the most strategic approaches would make victory
likelier sooner and longer-lasting when it comes.
I think the peace movement bottomed out in late 2008 for two reasons above all others. One was the election of a Democratic president. I wasn't around for Wilson, FDR, or LBJ, but my impression is that
electing Democratic presidents is often bad news for both peace and,
paradoxically, for the peace movement. But both can eventually recover.
The other reason was the unconstitutional and uncertain treaty that
Bush and Maliki created, requiring the complete end of the Iraq
occupation following three more years of it. The agreement actually
made this delay a year and a half, rather than three years, by making
the treaty breakable through a vote of the Iraqi people (the outcome of
which could not be doubted). However, that was denied to them. While
the US peace movement had always demanded an IMMEDIATE end to the war
in Iraq, and might have been expected to go on doing so, the
combination of a written deadline and the ascension of a Democrat to
the throne proved deadly, even as the occupation of Iraq continued and
that in Afghanistan escalated.
We now have a larger and more costly military, and larger and more costly wars -- costly in financial terms -- than when Bush was president. We have more troops in the field, more mercenaries in the
field, bases in more nations, a heightened use of drone strikes into
additional countries, new secret military forces in still other
nations, and greater war powers assumed by the president, including the
power to assassinate Americans, the more firmly established powers to
imprison without charge, rendition, and torture, and heightened powers
of secrecy.
So, why do I say we've made progress? Well, I said we've made progress from where we were in late 2008, at which point the downward trends I've just mentioned could be foreseen. We'd just elected a
president promising a larger military and an escalation in Afghanistan.
Since then, the U.S. public has turned dramatically from supporting to
opposing the war in Afghanistan and the President's handling of it. The
planned escalation in Kandahar has failed to get off the ground. Every
official governmental and non-governmental study has deemed the effort
in Afghanistan hopeless, pointless, catastrophic, or criminal. High
ranking whistleblowers have spoken out. The Pentagon has resorted to
wild claims of mineral wealth, as it flails about for new ways to
justify the war. And the blame game, surrounding the eventual
withdrawal, has begun; the general in charge has been dismissed. In
addition, the withdrawal dates that people associate with Iraq and
Afghanistan (out of Iraq by the end of 2011, beginning to get out of
Afghanistan by July 2011) are closer, meaning that outrage at their
violation is closer.
At the same time, counter-recruitment efforts in the United States have begun achieving real successes, forcing the closure of the Army Experience Center in Pennsylvania and denying recruiters students' test
data in Maryland. US troops have begun refusing illegal orders in
greater numbers, and a culture of troop resistance coffee houses near
US bases has been reborn. The economic slide in the United States,
while in no sense desirable, and hurting the ability of some of us to
be engaged in the movement, is opening people's eyes to the impact of
the war economy on the peace economy, and allowing coalitions to be
formed of groups that want to defund wars and the military plus groups
that want to fund everything else: healthcare, schools, jobs, green
energy, etc. Resolutions against war spending are being passed by
political parties, towns, cities, and labor councils. Cities are
putting cost of war counters on city hall. A coalition of peace and
social justice groups has been holding monthly vigils at congress
members' local offices, with significant local impact in dozens of
districts, even if less noticeable nationally than big annual marches.
During the past year and a half, numerous activist organizations and somewhat independent media outlets have shifted from supporting the war in Afghanistan to opposing it. By opposing it, they are not necessarily
lobbying to defund it or taking any other steps to resist it or educate
people about it, but they are officially opposed to it, meaning that
they are our untapped potential waiting to be put into action. And
numerous other groups, old and news, have to various degrees and in
various ways become active, opposing the wars, each in their own way,
and contributing to these kinds of results:
May-June 2009 - 51 Democrats vote against war funding when it's guaranteed to pass; 32 vote against it when it might fail.
Late June 2009 - 131 Democrats vote for the Pentagon to produce an exit strategy, any exit strategy, for Afghanistan.
March 2010 - 65 Democrats vote to end the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2010.
July 1, 2010 - Well over 40, at least 51, and possibly 90 or more (up from 32) Democrats refuse to vote for Afghan war escalation funding, even with pleasant unrelated legislation attached, forcing
House leadership to delay the bill for months and then maneuver it to
passage without a vote.
July 1, 2010 - 38 Democrats (up from 32, but similarly limited to the number Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow -- see below) vote against the Rule that effectively allows the funding bill to go forward toward
becoming law.
July 1, 2010 - 25 congress members vote to cut off all funding for the war in Afghanistan. 100 vote to fund only withdrawal. And 162 (up from 131, and for a strengthened amendment) vote to require the
president to present Congress with a National Intelligence Estimate on
Afghanistan and a withdrawal plan and completion date, and to require
that Congress vote by July 2011 "if it wants to allow the obligation
and expenditure of funds for Afghanistan in a manner that is not
consistent with the president's announced policy of December 2009 to
begin to drawdown troops by July 2011."
Two separate events in 2009 were combined into one in 2010. First, the funding vote was held in 2009, and the peace movement pushed for No votes hard. The White House and the House leadership were forced to
bribe and threaten congress members for weeks to keep the Democratic No
votes down to 32. Had they reached 39 the bill would have (at least in
its current form) failed, due to all the Republicans voting No because
of an unrelated measure packaged into it. It was easy to see that we
could get to 39 by the next "emergency" supplemental bill if we wanted
to work at it. The second event in 2009 was the vote on Congressman Jim
McGovern's proposal for an exit timetable. The peace movement worked
hard for this and won 131 Yes votes. This generated two separate
stories, and the two agendas did not come into conflict with each other.
In 2010 it was a different story. Congressman McGovern made his proposal for an exit timetable an amendment to the funding bill. So, some peace groups promoted yes votes on that amendment, some pushed for
No votes on the funding, and others did both. And the pressure for No
votes on the funding was felt by congress members whose constituents
were organized and active. Rep. Chellie Pingree was pressured hard in
Maine, and began to speak out for stopping the funding. She told
General Petraeus in a hearing that he was making us all less safe (even
if she did thank him three times for that "service"). And Congressman
Alan Grayson, in a move I don't recall ever having seen before, set up
a website for people to use in lobbying his colleagues to vote No on
the funding.
If the amendments had been held back for a later date and a second event, then what happened on July 1, 2010, might have looked a little different. Progressive congress members might not have accepted a
byzantine procedural maneuver that allowed the war escalation funding
to be sent back to the Senate without the House actually voting on it.
Or if such a procedure was tried, more of them might have voted No on
the Rule allowing it. Instead, almost all the committed war opponents
voted for the Rule that moved the funding along, with the double excuse
that it was only a Rule vote, not a real true policy vote, and they
were voting for it in order to have a chance to vote for good
amendments.
And what would have happened next, if this procedure had been rejected? I can't be sure, because I don't know every crazy trick to be found in House parliamentary precedents, but one distinct possibility
is that the Democratic leadership would have been forced to pass the
war escalation funding on its own with mostly Republican votes, and to
pass useful peaceful spending on its own with mostly Democratic votes.
The war funding would then have sailed through the Senate and been
signed by the President. The non-destructive spending would then have
passed the Senate if its leadership had fought hard enough and been
willing if necessary to throw out the filibuster rule. McGovern's exit
strategy bill could then have garnered its 162 votes the next week or
next month instead of being buried in the news of late-night funding
passage.
Why would this result have been any better than what we got?
Well, for one thing, it would have informed people that there was a war and that the war was being funded. My local right-wing Democrat voted No on the Rule and Yes on McGovern's amendment, but he voted No
on the Rule because of all sorts of other nonsense added into it. The
local media reported on his objection to the budgetary procedures
involved and never reported in any way that there had been any vote in
Congress related to the war. As far as my neighbors know, the wars fund
themselves.
Secondly, it would have identified who was pro-war and who was anti-war by their votes. Local activists in my town spent months demanding that our representative take a position on the war. He has
yet to do so, and if he can avoid it he never will. We can't hold
people accountable unless we know what they've done. Right now some
congress members are claiming they opposed the war by voting against
the Rule while others are claiming they opposed the war by voting for
it.
Thirdly, forcing the Democratic leadership to line up with the Republican caucus and against most of the Democrats on war votes would be educational for people who are unaware that their chief opponent
when lobbying their local Democrat for peace and justice is the
leadership of his or her party.
Fourth, the demand to stop funding the war comes from people. It's a demand we take to Congress, not one we pick up from Congress and try to explain to others. We can form huge coalitions with economic justice
groups around the demand to shift our spending from wars to jobs and
housing. We can't organize two kids and a dog from outside the peace
movement to join a coalition for an unspecified non-binding exit
timetable or a new National Intelligence Estimate. That doesn't mean
these are counterproductive demands. I would certainly support them on
any day of the year other than the day Congress is voting to fund the
wars. The problem is when one useful campaign unnecessarily interferes
with another.
Fifth, if we think of Congress as sending messages to the president who will make all the decisions as "the decider," I would rather have two events and send two messages. And the strongest message I can
imagine is this: "A growing number of House members have committed to
voting against any more war funding, no matter how much lipstick is
applied to it, and this group includes the majority of your party's
caucus, and people are organizing to keep these members in office and
vote the others out". Other, weaker messages could still be sent, and
sent more strongly, on another day.
Sixth, if we think of Congress as potentially resembling the creature defined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, as capable of actual action, not just rhetoric, then our goal becomes building toward
the day on which the House actually refuses any more funding for a war
it opposes. In order to think this way, we have to stop thinking
exclusively in terms of passing bills that then must pass the Senate
and the President. We have to also be able to think in terms of
blocking the passage of bills. For this we only need the House. We can
focus our attention on the House and stop petitioning the Senate and
the President. This gives us a lot more resources. Plus, we don't have
to antagonize president worshippers. Instead we can focus our demands
on House members. And we can insist on other forms of action from
Congress as well, such as oversight of wars involving subpoenas and
their enforcement and the threat of high level impeachments. The
strongest message a Congress can send to a president is, with all due
respect to many of my friends, not "We wish you would end the war some
day," but "We will expose any war crimes, and we hold the power of the
purse."
Seventh, while our ideal must be ending the current wars in whatever combination of approaches is most likely to succeed the fastest, we should also take an interest in ending wars in a manner that helps
prevent the next ones from beginning immediately. This means focusing
on the funding, and moving from the defunding of wars to the defunding
of the military and the empire of foreign bases, shrinking the machine
that creates the wars. And it means taking the power to initiate or
escalate or indefinitely continue wars away from presidents.
The peace movement in the US, organizationally, and much to its disadvantage, has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. We are, consequently, often instructed in the need to relate to congress
members on their terms, using their language, etc. One good friend of
mine is quite energized with the need to instruct us that the recent
vote on a Rule did not technically fund the war escalation, even while
readily admitting that the only way to stop that particular bill that
day (at least momentarily) was to vote No on the Rule. But there is
also a value to forcing congress members to speak our language. It is
not, after all, our job to represent them. Peace activists in Maine
made themselves so clear to Rep. Chellie Pingree that she was compelled
to vote against the Rule and understood immediately that its being
merely a Rule vote would constitute no excuse whatsoever. Peace
activists in some parts of Tennessee and Pennsylvania (who may have a
harder base to work with) did not do as well, as illustrated by this
passage from the Hill describing the July 1, 2010, vote on the Rule:
"Party leaders were forced to hold open the vote for several minutes, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could be seen huddling with Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.) and Paul Kanjorski (Penn.), the last
Democratic holdouts. Both cast 'yes' votes to push the motion over the
top. When it was clear the measure had passed, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
(D-Ariz.) switched her vote from 'yes' to 'no.' The final total was
215-210, with 8 lawmakers not voting. Cohen told The Hill earlier in
the week that he was disinclined to support a war funding bill after
bowing to pressure from party leaders who needed him to switch his vote
from 'no' to 'yes' a year ago."
Almost no one in Maine, including the leading activists had any idea what a self-executing Rule is. But Congresswoman Pingree had a good idea what was expected of her. We have to take our message to Congress,
not the reverse. Our message, the one that comes from our people, the
one that builds coalitions with our allies in the broader justice
movement is: Stop the funding!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Ken O'Keefe and the Defense of the Mavi Marmara
P U L S E
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
Ken O’Keefe: ‘We, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are the modern example of Gandhi’s essence’
Ken O’Keefe, former US Marine, Gulf War veteran, and now survivor of the Mavi Marmara massacre, has issued a remarkable and searing statement from Istanbul. “While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else, was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.“
O’Keefe was a human shield in Iraq who formally renounced his US citizenship in protest in 2001; he now has Irish as well as Palestinian citizenship. On the morning of the attack, as he describes it, he was “directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day.” Subsequently brutalised by the Israeli military, he is defiant: “I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context“.
In another context — one that does not involve Israel — O’Keefe’s valor would likely be recognized and rewarded by the country whose military he served and whose citizenship he has relinquished. Yet he will be a hero to millions around the world.
Read O’Keefe’s statement in full below.
I have for many years understood that we, people of conscience, are the true holders of power in this world. Frustratingly however we have largely relinquished that power and failed to reach our full potential. Our potential to create a better world, a just world. Nonetheless I have conspired with others of like mind to reveal and exercise our true power. In 2002 I initiated the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq because I knew that the invasion of Iraq had been planned well in advance, that it was part of a ‘Global Spectrum Dominance’ agenda as laid out by the Project For A New American Century.
I knew that protests had no chance of stopping the invasion, and that largely these protests were just a way of making us feel better about the coming mass murder; by being able to say I protested against it. With that understanding I argued that the only viable way to stop the invasion was to conduct a mass migration to Iraq. A migration in which people from around the world, especially western citizens, would position themselves at sites in Iraq that are supposed to be protected by international law, but which are routinely bombed when it is only Iraqi, Palestinian, generally non-white, western lives who will be killed. I felt 10,000 such people could stop the invasion, or at the very least, expose the invasion for what it was from the start, an act of international aggression, a war crime and a crime against humanity.
When our two double-decker buses travelled from London to Baghdad through Turkey, it was ever clear that the people of Turkey also could sense the power of this act, and they were the biggest participants in it. In the end we did not get the numbers required to stop the war, with at least one million Iraqi’s dead as a result, but I remain convinced that it was within our power to prevent the invasion. A massive opportunity lost as far as I am concerned.
In 2007 I joined the Free Gaza Movement with its plan to challenge the blockade of Gaza by travelling to Gaza by sea. From the moment I heard of the plan I knew it could succeed and ultimately I served as a captain on the first attempt. The Israeli government said throughout our preparation that we were no better than pirates and they would treat us as such. They made clear we would not reach Gaza. And still I knew we could succeed. And we did. Two boats with 46 passengers from various countries managed to sail into Gaza on August 23, 2010; this was the first time this had been done in 41 years. The truth is the blockade of Gaza is far more than three years old, and yet we, a small group of conscientious people defied the Israeli machine and celebrated with tens of thousands of Gazans when we arrived that day. We proved that it could be done. We proved that an intelligent plan, with skilled manipulation of the media, could render the full might of the Israeli Navy useless. And I knew then that this was only the tip of the iceberg.
So participating in the Freedom Flotilla is like a family reunion to me. It is my long lost family whose conscience is their guide, who have shed the fear, who act with humanity. But I was especially proud to join IHH and the Turkish elements of the flotilla. I deeply admire the strength and character of the Turkish people, despite your history having stains of injustice, like every nation, you are today from citizen to Prime Minister among the leaders in the cause of humanity and justice.
I remember being asked during the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq if I was a pacifist, I responded with a quote from Gandhi by saying I am not a passive anything. To the contrary I believe in action, and I also believe in self-defence, 100%, without reservation. I would be incapable of standing by while a tyrant murders my family, and the attack on the Mavi Marmara was like an attack on my Palestinian family. I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with those who refused to let a rogue Israeli military exert their will without a fight. And yes, we fought.
When I was asked, in the event of an Israeli attack on the Mavi Mamara, would I use the camera, or would I defend the ship? I enthusiastically committed to defence of the ship. Although I am also a huge supporter of non-violence, in fact I believe non-violence must always be the first option. Nonetheless I joined the defence of the Mavi Mamara understanding that violence could be used against us and that we may very well be compelled to use violence in self-defence.
I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution. I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder.
I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea. I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go. The Israeli prostitutes of propaganda can spew all of their disgusting bile all they wish, the commandos are the murderers, we are the defenders, and yet we fought. We fought not just for our lives, not just for our cargo, not just for the people of Palestine, we fought in the name of justice and humanity. We were right to do so, in every way.
While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.
In conclusion; I would like to challenge every endorser of Gandhi, every person who thinks they understand him, who acknowledges him as one of the great souls of our time (which is just about every western leader), I challenge you in the form of a question. Please explain how we, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are not the modern example of Gandhi’s essence? But first read the words of Gandhi himself.
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. – Gandhi
And lastly I have one more challenge. I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context. I want to debate with you on the largest stage possible. Take that as an open challenge and let us see just how brave Israeli leaders are.
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
Ken O’Keefe: ‘We, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are the modern example of Gandhi’s essence’
Ken O’Keefe, former US Marine, Gulf War veteran, and now survivor of the Mavi Marmara massacre, has issued a remarkable and searing statement from Istanbul. “While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else, was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.“
O’Keefe was a human shield in Iraq who formally renounced his US citizenship in protest in 2001; he now has Irish as well as Palestinian citizenship. On the morning of the attack, as he describes it, he was “directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day.” Subsequently brutalised by the Israeli military, he is defiant: “I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context“.
In another context — one that does not involve Israel — O’Keefe’s valor would likely be recognized and rewarded by the country whose military he served and whose citizenship he has relinquished. Yet he will be a hero to millions around the world.
Read O’Keefe’s statement in full below.
I have for many years understood that we, people of conscience, are the true holders of power in this world. Frustratingly however we have largely relinquished that power and failed to reach our full potential. Our potential to create a better world, a just world. Nonetheless I have conspired with others of like mind to reveal and exercise our true power. In 2002 I initiated the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq because I knew that the invasion of Iraq had been planned well in advance, that it was part of a ‘Global Spectrum Dominance’ agenda as laid out by the Project For A New American Century.
I knew that protests had no chance of stopping the invasion, and that largely these protests were just a way of making us feel better about the coming mass murder; by being able to say I protested against it. With that understanding I argued that the only viable way to stop the invasion was to conduct a mass migration to Iraq. A migration in which people from around the world, especially western citizens, would position themselves at sites in Iraq that are supposed to be protected by international law, but which are routinely bombed when it is only Iraqi, Palestinian, generally non-white, western lives who will be killed. I felt 10,000 such people could stop the invasion, or at the very least, expose the invasion for what it was from the start, an act of international aggression, a war crime and a crime against humanity.
When our two double-decker buses travelled from London to Baghdad through Turkey, it was ever clear that the people of Turkey also could sense the power of this act, and they were the biggest participants in it. In the end we did not get the numbers required to stop the war, with at least one million Iraqi’s dead as a result, but I remain convinced that it was within our power to prevent the invasion. A massive opportunity lost as far as I am concerned.
In 2007 I joined the Free Gaza Movement with its plan to challenge the blockade of Gaza by travelling to Gaza by sea. From the moment I heard of the plan I knew it could succeed and ultimately I served as a captain on the first attempt. The Israeli government said throughout our preparation that we were no better than pirates and they would treat us as such. They made clear we would not reach Gaza. And still I knew we could succeed. And we did. Two boats with 46 passengers from various countries managed to sail into Gaza on August 23, 2010; this was the first time this had been done in 41 years. The truth is the blockade of Gaza is far more than three years old, and yet we, a small group of conscientious people defied the Israeli machine and celebrated with tens of thousands of Gazans when we arrived that day. We proved that it could be done. We proved that an intelligent plan, with skilled manipulation of the media, could render the full might of the Israeli Navy useless. And I knew then that this was only the tip of the iceberg.
So participating in the Freedom Flotilla is like a family reunion to me. It is my long lost family whose conscience is their guide, who have shed the fear, who act with humanity. But I was especially proud to join IHH and the Turkish elements of the flotilla. I deeply admire the strength and character of the Turkish people, despite your history having stains of injustice, like every nation, you are today from citizen to Prime Minister among the leaders in the cause of humanity and justice.
I remember being asked during the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq if I was a pacifist, I responded with a quote from Gandhi by saying I am not a passive anything. To the contrary I believe in action, and I also believe in self-defence, 100%, without reservation. I would be incapable of standing by while a tyrant murders my family, and the attack on the Mavi Marmara was like an attack on my Palestinian family. I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with those who refused to let a rogue Israeli military exert their will without a fight. And yes, we fought.
When I was asked, in the event of an Israeli attack on the Mavi Mamara, would I use the camera, or would I defend the ship? I enthusiastically committed to defence of the ship. Although I am also a huge supporter of non-violence, in fact I believe non-violence must always be the first option. Nonetheless I joined the defence of the Mavi Mamara understanding that violence could be used against us and that we may very well be compelled to use violence in self-defence.
I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution. I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder.
I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea. I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go. The Israeli prostitutes of propaganda can spew all of their disgusting bile all they wish, the commandos are the murderers, we are the defenders, and yet we fought. We fought not just for our lives, not just for our cargo, not just for the people of Palestine, we fought in the name of justice and humanity. We were right to do so, in every way.
While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.
In conclusion; I would like to challenge every endorser of Gandhi, every person who thinks they understand him, who acknowledges him as one of the great souls of our time (which is just about every western leader), I challenge you in the form of a question. Please explain how we, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are not the modern example of Gandhi’s essence? But first read the words of Gandhi himself.
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. – Gandhi
And lastly I have one more challenge. I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context. I want to debate with you on the largest stage possible. Take that as an open challenge and let us see just how brave Israeli leaders are.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
ANC Scores Own Goal?
“The ANC Scores Own Goal”: A Statement on the World Cup from the Socialist Party of Azania (SOPA)
25th April 2010
June 2010 – the year we witness the glorious bursting forth from the chrysalis of “democratic state” the ravenous beast of the security-centric state. A one kilometre Ring of Steel to be erected around each and every stadium where FIFA fixtures are to be played, meaning that any “unpatriotic citizens” who hope to use the hundreds of international media networks to highlight their conditions of poverty will be dealt with in the same manner that exactly 34 years ago the apartheid regime dealt with Black people on June 1976.
Far more than the first proposed R28 billion has been spent in the past two years to upgrade stadiums and airports. An estimated R20 billion was also spent on the revamping and widening of highways. R35 billion has so far been spent on the Gautrain (a single train service for the rich whose destination is the international airport and the country’s capital, Pretoria, the initial budget was R13 billion, which in itself was enough to resolve all the transport problems of the country). There is also, of course, the undisclosed R100’s of millions to the Local Organising Committee, certainly with such hefty expenditure to entertain the world at the expense of the poor, the ANC cannot take any chances that the “chattering masses” will behave themselves. All their detailed planning and event co-ordination strategies of an event of this magnitude, no doubt, gives them sleepless nights, for to visualise every contingent plan requisite under almost any perceived scenario takes both insight, which they clearly do not have and billions of Rand which have yet to be paid for in blood on the backs of the Black working class over the next generation.
So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a “world-class extravaganza”?
Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of “Ša better life for allŠ”, in the face of the reality of rising unemployment, reduced wages, growing squatter camps, lowered education outcomes and failing health systems. Given a 15 year tenure of the ANC as a ‘democratically elected government’, given their near-perfect track record of non-delivery, given the extent of expenditure running literally into hundreds of billions of Rand in preparation for the World Cup with almost none of it qualitatively changing the lives of the millions of citizens, given the potential for rebellion and social dissent amongst those “unpatriotic” citizens can very easily spell disaster for the best-laid plans of mice and men.
What contingency plan could the ANC possibly put in place to mitigate the righteous indignation and protestations of a people denied of the historical “land, bread and peace”. Well, that’s easy – thousands of police and soldiers and of course the “old” Act No: 74 of the Internal Security Act of 1982 been substituted with the “new improved” Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill of 2003 that will simply ban all public gatherings, and that includes the potential banning of all June 16 Commemoration Services. June 16th 1976 being the cornerstone and milestone of the liberation struggle in South Africa/Azania.
The ANC faces an intractable dilemma having squandered vast sums of money in order to beautify infrastructure “suitable” for a handful of transient tourists so as to proudly proclaim our civility and ability to savour the finer things in life, thus revealing their oafish nature and their shrink-wrapped ability to match the consumptive patterns of western culture so evident and readily exportable from the Imperialist countries to the deliberately underdeveloped countries of Africa and elsewhere. Now they have to bluster and bully the populace into believing that what they did was for the common good.
A devastatingly risky gamble, taken on the assumption that their “historical popularity” or the ‘Mandela Magic’ as it is commonly called, will carry them through yet again, the same dwindling popularity that has consistently returned them to power over and over again in the past 15 years, yet unwittingly squandering the last vestiges of credibility it had in its “goodwill coffers” in the hope that such a gamble could pull off an amazing “smoke and mirrors” event, both at the level of, bamboozling citizens with non-delivery while alleging lack of resources, yet pulling off a successful World Cup, at a huge expense to adulating bourgeois audiences to whom South Africa will be further be indebted post 2010.
The staggeringly disproportionate expenditure used to create “world-class facilities”, when compared against the allocated budgets for social delivery programmes boggles ones’ mind. Will the hard-pressed working class of this country realise how they have been short-changed by the ruling party, and if they do realise it, what is the most likely courses of action that they would engage in order to express their displeasure. Clearly something of this magnitude cannot go unnoticed and surely millions of people will not merely shrug their shoulders and declare that as ‘life’ and then wander on in their expected state of complacency in the face of brute oppression.
How does one reconcile the fact that every second Municipal water treatment plant has ground to a halt as a result of poor maintenance and inadequate upgrades, triggering cholera outbreaks across the country? How does one reconcile the fact that the numerous public hospitals across the country are desperately short of adequately trained staff and desperately short of sufficient medical supplies and equipment? How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children engage in an educational system that is largely dysfunctional?
How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children attend school on a daily basis hungry and tired, also the fact that there are still children learning to read and write under trees or an open sky? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people live in the worst kind of squatter conditions imaginable? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people do not have access to clean and potable water? How does one reconcile the fact that some 14 million of people are still unemployed when we are fed the lie that our economy is stable and will weather the storms of the now evident global depression? What about the fact that 42.9% of our people live at less than U$2 a day, below the poverty datum line?
We consistently hear the ANC using the term “Šour young democracy”, purely in reference to voting and elections, as if the notion of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of hunger, resolution of all homelessness, resolution of faulty education, resolution of landlessness, resolution of unemployment, etc. It appears that the ANC through its rapacious expropriation of the wealth of this country from the workers in order to benefit the few elites has by their own actions set in motion a series of events that do not bode well for the outcome of the 2010 World Cup. The ANC does not need clever “first world” risk analysis strategies and complex disaster management scenario to be painted for them in order for them to understand or forestall the inevitable consequences of an empty stomach. Unfortunately, for its card carrying membership, there is no “battle for the soul of the ANC” its soul is already owned lock stock and barrel by the IMF, World Bank overlords and they do not have the requisite authority to deliver on their “promises” in order to negate those very likely consequences and outcomes of popular dissent and the rising tide of rebellion.
We expect to hear the standard defence line normally advanced by the ANC government and its sycophants in the face of such spontaneous uprisings, “Šthat they are the work of a third force, who are intent on destroying our fragile democracy”. We may even see the phrase “third force” been replaced with the word “terrorist”, yet surely, the answer must be less “conspiratorial” and lie somewhere in the area of the “accepted responsibility” of a democratically elected government to ensure the adequate delivery of basic housing in order to negate the potential damage and destruction to their precious “world-class” infrastructure put in place for 2010. In order to mitigate against theft from and robbery of tourists, you do not need to deploy 41,000 more police and 20,000 soldiers, just create more jobs for the ordinary citizen.
It is no credit to the government as it finds itself in a situation where it has to quell angry dissent of its own citizens, (using revised laws originally created by the apartheid apparatchik) citizens who simply demand what is due to them in the context of their understanding of democracy. In a nutshell the ANC is an event management team put together for the sole purpose of expediting the will of Global Capitalism, yet, foolishly have come to believe that their authority and function transcends the rather narrow boundaries prescribed by the dictates of both the World Bank and the IMF and the specific requirements of their global economic strategies, and much like the former regime, it could well be the defining month wherein the dissent you seek to suppress, will swamp the embankments of your sophistry.
Given the above “scenarios”, what we should be focusing on is as the Socialist Party of Azania is, how best to ride out the gathering storm. But then again, the workers and the Black majority should in all fairness be assisted to become the arbiters of their own destiny. The past sixteen years have clearly confirmed what we have known and believed about the crisis of humanity being that of leadership, the need for revolutionary leadership.
25th April 2010
June 2010 – the year we witness the glorious bursting forth from the chrysalis of “democratic state” the ravenous beast of the security-centric state. A one kilometre Ring of Steel to be erected around each and every stadium where FIFA fixtures are to be played, meaning that any “unpatriotic citizens” who hope to use the hundreds of international media networks to highlight their conditions of poverty will be dealt with in the same manner that exactly 34 years ago the apartheid regime dealt with Black people on June 1976.
Far more than the first proposed R28 billion has been spent in the past two years to upgrade stadiums and airports. An estimated R20 billion was also spent on the revamping and widening of highways. R35 billion has so far been spent on the Gautrain (a single train service for the rich whose destination is the international airport and the country’s capital, Pretoria, the initial budget was R13 billion, which in itself was enough to resolve all the transport problems of the country). There is also, of course, the undisclosed R100’s of millions to the Local Organising Committee, certainly with such hefty expenditure to entertain the world at the expense of the poor, the ANC cannot take any chances that the “chattering masses” will behave themselves. All their detailed planning and event co-ordination strategies of an event of this magnitude, no doubt, gives them sleepless nights, for to visualise every contingent plan requisite under almost any perceived scenario takes both insight, which they clearly do not have and billions of Rand which have yet to be paid for in blood on the backs of the Black working class over the next generation.
So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a “world-class extravaganza”?
Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of “Ša better life for allŠ”, in the face of the reality of rising unemployment, reduced wages, growing squatter camps, lowered education outcomes and failing health systems. Given a 15 year tenure of the ANC as a ‘democratically elected government’, given their near-perfect track record of non-delivery, given the extent of expenditure running literally into hundreds of billions of Rand in preparation for the World Cup with almost none of it qualitatively changing the lives of the millions of citizens, given the potential for rebellion and social dissent amongst those “unpatriotic” citizens can very easily spell disaster for the best-laid plans of mice and men.
What contingency plan could the ANC possibly put in place to mitigate the righteous indignation and protestations of a people denied of the historical “land, bread and peace”. Well, that’s easy – thousands of police and soldiers and of course the “old” Act No: 74 of the Internal Security Act of 1982 been substituted with the “new improved” Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill of 2003 that will simply ban all public gatherings, and that includes the potential banning of all June 16 Commemoration Services. June 16th 1976 being the cornerstone and milestone of the liberation struggle in South Africa/Azania.
The ANC faces an intractable dilemma having squandered vast sums of money in order to beautify infrastructure “suitable” for a handful of transient tourists so as to proudly proclaim our civility and ability to savour the finer things in life, thus revealing their oafish nature and their shrink-wrapped ability to match the consumptive patterns of western culture so evident and readily exportable from the Imperialist countries to the deliberately underdeveloped countries of Africa and elsewhere. Now they have to bluster and bully the populace into believing that what they did was for the common good.
A devastatingly risky gamble, taken on the assumption that their “historical popularity” or the ‘Mandela Magic’ as it is commonly called, will carry them through yet again, the same dwindling popularity that has consistently returned them to power over and over again in the past 15 years, yet unwittingly squandering the last vestiges of credibility it had in its “goodwill coffers” in the hope that such a gamble could pull off an amazing “smoke and mirrors” event, both at the level of, bamboozling citizens with non-delivery while alleging lack of resources, yet pulling off a successful World Cup, at a huge expense to adulating bourgeois audiences to whom South Africa will be further be indebted post 2010.
The staggeringly disproportionate expenditure used to create “world-class facilities”, when compared against the allocated budgets for social delivery programmes boggles ones’ mind. Will the hard-pressed working class of this country realise how they have been short-changed by the ruling party, and if they do realise it, what is the most likely courses of action that they would engage in order to express their displeasure. Clearly something of this magnitude cannot go unnoticed and surely millions of people will not merely shrug their shoulders and declare that as ‘life’ and then wander on in their expected state of complacency in the face of brute oppression.
How does one reconcile the fact that every second Municipal water treatment plant has ground to a halt as a result of poor maintenance and inadequate upgrades, triggering cholera outbreaks across the country? How does one reconcile the fact that the numerous public hospitals across the country are desperately short of adequately trained staff and desperately short of sufficient medical supplies and equipment? How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children engage in an educational system that is largely dysfunctional?
How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children attend school on a daily basis hungry and tired, also the fact that there are still children learning to read and write under trees or an open sky? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people live in the worst kind of squatter conditions imaginable? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people do not have access to clean and potable water? How does one reconcile the fact that some 14 million of people are still unemployed when we are fed the lie that our economy is stable and will weather the storms of the now evident global depression? What about the fact that 42.9% of our people live at less than U$2 a day, below the poverty datum line?
We consistently hear the ANC using the term “Šour young democracy”, purely in reference to voting and elections, as if the notion of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of hunger, resolution of all homelessness, resolution of faulty education, resolution of landlessness, resolution of unemployment, etc. It appears that the ANC through its rapacious expropriation of the wealth of this country from the workers in order to benefit the few elites has by their own actions set in motion a series of events that do not bode well for the outcome of the 2010 World Cup. The ANC does not need clever “first world” risk analysis strategies and complex disaster management scenario to be painted for them in order for them to understand or forestall the inevitable consequences of an empty stomach. Unfortunately, for its card carrying membership, there is no “battle for the soul of the ANC” its soul is already owned lock stock and barrel by the IMF, World Bank overlords and they do not have the requisite authority to deliver on their “promises” in order to negate those very likely consequences and outcomes of popular dissent and the rising tide of rebellion.
We expect to hear the standard defence line normally advanced by the ANC government and its sycophants in the face of such spontaneous uprisings, “Šthat they are the work of a third force, who are intent on destroying our fragile democracy”. We may even see the phrase “third force” been replaced with the word “terrorist”, yet surely, the answer must be less “conspiratorial” and lie somewhere in the area of the “accepted responsibility” of a democratically elected government to ensure the adequate delivery of basic housing in order to negate the potential damage and destruction to their precious “world-class” infrastructure put in place for 2010. In order to mitigate against theft from and robbery of tourists, you do not need to deploy 41,000 more police and 20,000 soldiers, just create more jobs for the ordinary citizen.
It is no credit to the government as it finds itself in a situation where it has to quell angry dissent of its own citizens, (using revised laws originally created by the apartheid apparatchik) citizens who simply demand what is due to them in the context of their understanding of democracy. In a nutshell the ANC is an event management team put together for the sole purpose of expediting the will of Global Capitalism, yet, foolishly have come to believe that their authority and function transcends the rather narrow boundaries prescribed by the dictates of both the World Bank and the IMF and the specific requirements of their global economic strategies, and much like the former regime, it could well be the defining month wherein the dissent you seek to suppress, will swamp the embankments of your sophistry.
Given the above “scenarios”, what we should be focusing on is as the Socialist Party of Azania is, how best to ride out the gathering storm. But then again, the workers and the Black majority should in all fairness be assisted to become the arbiters of their own destiny. The past sixteen years have clearly confirmed what we have known and believed about the crisis of humanity being that of leadership, the need for revolutionary leadership.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Dr. Flowers: Health Care Hero
After the Reform: Aiming High for Health Justice
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Tikkun Magazine, May/June 2010
As we sit here on the other side of the recent health reform process, we have an opportunity for reflection. There were many times during the past year and a half when passage of a health bill seemed unlikely. However, in the end, the White House and Democratic leadership joined forces and converted the last holdouts with scare tactics of electoral turnovers and even a trip on Air Force One in order to muscle a bill over the final hurdles. The mere fact that any bill was passed at all was hailed as the great accomplishment, because no honest proponent of health reform could call the final product a solution to our nation's serious health care crisis.
This entire health reform process occurred under the shadow of the previous attempt to pass significant health legislation. President Obama made this his signature issue, and so for his administration failure was not an option. He surrounded himself with many of those who were traumatized by their participation in the last go-round. Thus, the resulting strategy was based more on fear of the opposition than on sound health policy. An opportunity for an honest debate about the needs of our people was squandered for backroom deals with industry giants and the photo ops so reminiscent of the previous administration. And for the most part, the resulting legislation benefits the very industries that profit most from our current situation more than it benefits the people of America.
Pros and Cons of the Legislation
There are some provisions within the bill that are positive steps: comparative effectiveness research; funding for demonstration projects to improve care; a new emphasis on prevention, wellness, and public health; increased funding for community health centers; and incentives for primary care providers. These are all necessary provisions, but they do not offset the harm done by other provisions in the bill, such as the individual mandate to purchase private insurance with penalties for noncompliance and the $447 billion in public dollars being used to subsidize such purchases. The bill will omit at least 23 million people from having any coverage. And the requirement to accept people with pre-existing conditions will most certainly increase premiums such that they become unaffordable, or people will purchase policies with skimpier coverage. This will likely result in a larger population of underinsured people—those who risk bankruptcy from medical debt should they develop health problems.
And none of the positive steps turn us in the direction of creating a national health system such as there is in every other advanced nation. Rather, on the whole, this legislation, which was written with heavy input from private health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, further privatizes the financing of our health care and further enriches and empowers the very industries that are the problem. We know from experience both in the United States and abroad that market-based financing of health care is both the most expensive model and the most unjust, providing only as much health care as the patient can afford.
The Public Option Was Ruled Out at the Start
From the beginning of this process, it was clear that the administration and leadership had developed a strategy based on an outcome they believed they could achieve. The path was predetermined. All of the steps along the way, from the house parties that started during the winter of 2008 to the hearings, to the media spin, were planned so that the resulting "debate" was a drawn out performance of political theater. In order to disarm the corporate interests, the health industries that had opposed previous reforms were included on the inside. In order to disarm the Right, bipartisanship was at the forefront. In order to disarm the supporters of a single-payer plan, who are the majority, a campaign was developed around a promised "compromise," the public option, and given tens of millions of dollars for organizing and advertising. The public option succeeded in splitting the single payer movement and confusing and distracting it with endless discussion about what type of public option would be effective.
Despite all of the attention, the public option was never meant to be part of the final legislation. As early as March 2009, Senator Baucus admitted that the public option existed as a bargaining chip to convince private insurers to accept increased regulation. And a year later, Glenn Greenwald and others confirmed that the public option had been privately negotiated away, although members of Congress continued the charade and "fought" for it.
Toward the final vote, supporters of the public option were hearing the same excuses that single-payer advocates have heard for decades. We are always told that single-payer is not politically feasible. However, we know that political feasibility can change. We are told to be pragmatic, yet we know that the reform being passed was not practical, in that it failed to guarantee health care to everyone and to be financially sustainable. We are told we are asking for too much and should accept incremental change. However, we know that the smallest effective step we can take in health reform is the creation of a publicly funded health system. Beyond that, there is much more to do in order to create a health system that raises us into the top ten in the world.
Profit-Driven Insurers Cannot Prioritize Care
While politicians claim that we have finally achieved comprehensive health reform and that now all Americans will have guaranteed affordable health care, we in the single-payer movement experience a sense of déjà vu. We have seen the same scenario occur at the state level from Oregon to Maine to Tennessee, and most recently in Massachusetts. Every state that has passed a health reform package has made these claims, only to find that within a few years they were unable to cover the number of people they had hoped to cover and that their health care costs exceeded their budget. The reason for this is that every state, and now our federal government, ignored the data showing that we cannot achieve universal and affordable health care as long as we retain private insurers as an integral part of health care financing. This truth has been documented both in practice and in numerous economic studies.
We cannot control health care costs, without severe rationing, as long as we retain multiple private insurers, because this model wastes at least a third of our health care dollars on areas that have nothing to do with direct health care: marketing, high CEO salaries, profits, and administration. We cannot guarantee that patients will be able to afford needed care using private insurers because the private insurance model is profit driven. These corporations profit by avoiding the sick and denying and restricting payment for care. Their bottom line is profit, not improved health. And no amount of industry regulation to date has been successful in changing that bottom line. Likewise, the new federal legislation is full of loopholes that will allow private insurers to continue to skirt the regulations.
The White House and Congress claimed throughout the process that we must retain private insurance because Americans desire choice, and this has been framed as choice of insurance. However, this is a false concept. No person can anticipate what their health care needs will be or which insurance will be best. Health care needs change the day a patient has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious illness. We all need the same health insurance: one that covers all medically necessary care when and where we need it. Those of us who travel and listen find that people in America desire choice of health care provider and choice of treatment: the two choices that private health insurers restrict.
So what are the White House and Congress really saying when they claim that we must retain a private insurance model? That they are unwilling to take on these powerful industries, and so we, the people, must be willing to compromise and work within their framework. Mohandas Gandhi said:
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
When it comes to health reform, compromise on the fundamentals is unacceptable because the human costs are continued preventable deaths, continued suffering as patients fight for needed care, and continued bankruptcy from medical debt as families struggle to pay for deductibles and uncovered services. In a study published in Health Affairs in January 2008 that looked at the top nineteen industrialized nations, the United States ranked the worst—we have the highest number of preventable deaths (101,000 each year) because we lack a health system. All of the other industrialized nations have health systems based on the principles of health care as a human right: universality, equity, and accountability.
Why We Failed
Why have the American people been denied this same right? As I look back at the health reform process, I see three serious errors: a willingness to compromise, a lack of clarity about what we require, and a fear that failure to pass reform will have electoral consequences. These are the areas we must address as a people if we want to see real change in this nation, not just in health care but also in many areas that affect our ability to survive on this planet.
The willingness to compromise has occurred repeatedly at the state level. As a result, fewer people have access to care, and health care costs continue to rise; the fundamental problems are not corrected. This willingness to compromise is based on a real sense of desperation. We see real suffering. We want to do something. We are told that this reform, whatever it is, is the best we can get this time. We accept that and tell ourselves that it is something, it is a step.
As the congressional fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program, I saw this desperate attempt to pass something, anything, rise to the surface in the final weeks of the reform process. Patients and their families were brought into Congress to tell their stories of abuse at the hands of private insurers. Well-meaning legislators looked them in the eye and told them that this reform would change that. When I challenged the truth of that response, I was told, often in heated tones, that they (the legislators) had to do something and that at least this reform would help some people. I could only think of those who would not be helped. What about them?
The lack of clarity was grounded in the belief that if we simply advocated based on principles such as access and affordability, then the legislation would meet those principles. Legislators and pro-reform groups were content to speak based on principles as long as they were not challenged about whether those principles were being met. We must go beneath the surface of simple principles, educate ourselves, and define what is acceptable and what isn't. If we don't know exactly what we are asking for, we won't get it. And we mustn't be afraid to ask for what we require. As a people, we have become willing to accept crumbs when we require so much more than crumbs.
The final mistake was to pin the results of the upcoming elections to the success or failure of passing reform. Those who were reluctant to support the legislation were forced to support it in the end or risk being blamed for possible electoral consequences. As has often happened in past campaigns, people were forced to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of for what they truly wanted.
We Can Still Create a National Health Program!
So what do we do now that a health bill has been signed? Now that the clamor has quieted, it is time for a civilized discussion of what our health needs are and how best to meet them. This discussion is unlikely to occur in a mainstream media dominated by advertising dollars from health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. We will need to have this discussion at a more personal level and through independent sources of media. We must educate ourselves and those around us about what is possible to achieve in this nation.
It is possible to create a national health program in which every person living in this country is able to receive the same high standard of medical care whenever and wherever they need it, without fear of financial consequences. We call this health security. Other advanced nations have achieved this goal. The United States has not, and is currently ranked thirty-seventh in the world for health outcomes. We spend more per capita on health care than every advanced nation, yet leave a third of our population either completely on the outside or vulnerable to financial ruin should they have a serious health problem.
Physicians for a National Health Program, founded in 1987, educates and advocates for a health system that will improve our health outcomes and provide health security based on the evidence of what has worked in our nation and what is effective in other advanced nations. We envision a lifelong universal health system—much like traditional Medicare—that is nationwide. We envision a system that allows patients to choose where they receive their care, permits caregivers and patients to determine the best course of treatment with assistance from evidence-based data, controls costs in a rational way through simplified administration and negotiation of fair prices, and is progressively financed. Its publicly funded nature would make it transparent and accountable. Because it would be privately delivered, it would allow caregivers to compete based on quality of care provided. Private health insurers would be relegated to a position of offering supplemental plans and possibly providing administrative support.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that to witness an injustice and not work to correct it is in itself an act of violence. As a physician and an advocate for nonviolence, I cannot ignore the injustice of the great health inequality that exists in our nation or ignore those in need who cannot afford medical treatment. We have delayed this struggle for too long. Alice Walker said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." So, let's do it. We have the resources. Now we must create the political will. Together, we can create a health justice movement, educate ourselves, speak with clarity, and organize independently of any political party. Please join us. You can learn more at www.pnhp.org or join the grassroots movement at www.healthcare-now.org.
Dr.Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician who serves as the congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the board of Healthcare-NOW! She is one of the "Baucus 8."
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=may2010flowers
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Tikkun Magazine, May/June 2010
As we sit here on the other side of the recent health reform process, we have an opportunity for reflection. There were many times during the past year and a half when passage of a health bill seemed unlikely. However, in the end, the White House and Democratic leadership joined forces and converted the last holdouts with scare tactics of electoral turnovers and even a trip on Air Force One in order to muscle a bill over the final hurdles. The mere fact that any bill was passed at all was hailed as the great accomplishment, because no honest proponent of health reform could call the final product a solution to our nation's serious health care crisis.
This entire health reform process occurred under the shadow of the previous attempt to pass significant health legislation. President Obama made this his signature issue, and so for his administration failure was not an option. He surrounded himself with many of those who were traumatized by their participation in the last go-round. Thus, the resulting strategy was based more on fear of the opposition than on sound health policy. An opportunity for an honest debate about the needs of our people was squandered for backroom deals with industry giants and the photo ops so reminiscent of the previous administration. And for the most part, the resulting legislation benefits the very industries that profit most from our current situation more than it benefits the people of America.
Pros and Cons of the Legislation
There are some provisions within the bill that are positive steps: comparative effectiveness research; funding for demonstration projects to improve care; a new emphasis on prevention, wellness, and public health; increased funding for community health centers; and incentives for primary care providers. These are all necessary provisions, but they do not offset the harm done by other provisions in the bill, such as the individual mandate to purchase private insurance with penalties for noncompliance and the $447 billion in public dollars being used to subsidize such purchases. The bill will omit at least 23 million people from having any coverage. And the requirement to accept people with pre-existing conditions will most certainly increase premiums such that they become unaffordable, or people will purchase policies with skimpier coverage. This will likely result in a larger population of underinsured people—those who risk bankruptcy from medical debt should they develop health problems.
And none of the positive steps turn us in the direction of creating a national health system such as there is in every other advanced nation. Rather, on the whole, this legislation, which was written with heavy input from private health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, further privatizes the financing of our health care and further enriches and empowers the very industries that are the problem. We know from experience both in the United States and abroad that market-based financing of health care is both the most expensive model and the most unjust, providing only as much health care as the patient can afford.
The Public Option Was Ruled Out at the Start
From the beginning of this process, it was clear that the administration and leadership had developed a strategy based on an outcome they believed they could achieve. The path was predetermined. All of the steps along the way, from the house parties that started during the winter of 2008 to the hearings, to the media spin, were planned so that the resulting "debate" was a drawn out performance of political theater. In order to disarm the corporate interests, the health industries that had opposed previous reforms were included on the inside. In order to disarm the Right, bipartisanship was at the forefront. In order to disarm the supporters of a single-payer plan, who are the majority, a campaign was developed around a promised "compromise," the public option, and given tens of millions of dollars for organizing and advertising. The public option succeeded in splitting the single payer movement and confusing and distracting it with endless discussion about what type of public option would be effective.
Despite all of the attention, the public option was never meant to be part of the final legislation. As early as March 2009, Senator Baucus admitted that the public option existed as a bargaining chip to convince private insurers to accept increased regulation. And a year later, Glenn Greenwald and others confirmed that the public option had been privately negotiated away, although members of Congress continued the charade and "fought" for it.
Toward the final vote, supporters of the public option were hearing the same excuses that single-payer advocates have heard for decades. We are always told that single-payer is not politically feasible. However, we know that political feasibility can change. We are told to be pragmatic, yet we know that the reform being passed was not practical, in that it failed to guarantee health care to everyone and to be financially sustainable. We are told we are asking for too much and should accept incremental change. However, we know that the smallest effective step we can take in health reform is the creation of a publicly funded health system. Beyond that, there is much more to do in order to create a health system that raises us into the top ten in the world.
Profit-Driven Insurers Cannot Prioritize Care
While politicians claim that we have finally achieved comprehensive health reform and that now all Americans will have guaranteed affordable health care, we in the single-payer movement experience a sense of déjà vu. We have seen the same scenario occur at the state level from Oregon to Maine to Tennessee, and most recently in Massachusetts. Every state that has passed a health reform package has made these claims, only to find that within a few years they were unable to cover the number of people they had hoped to cover and that their health care costs exceeded their budget. The reason for this is that every state, and now our federal government, ignored the data showing that we cannot achieve universal and affordable health care as long as we retain private insurers as an integral part of health care financing. This truth has been documented both in practice and in numerous economic studies.
We cannot control health care costs, without severe rationing, as long as we retain multiple private insurers, because this model wastes at least a third of our health care dollars on areas that have nothing to do with direct health care: marketing, high CEO salaries, profits, and administration. We cannot guarantee that patients will be able to afford needed care using private insurers because the private insurance model is profit driven. These corporations profit by avoiding the sick and denying and restricting payment for care. Their bottom line is profit, not improved health. And no amount of industry regulation to date has been successful in changing that bottom line. Likewise, the new federal legislation is full of loopholes that will allow private insurers to continue to skirt the regulations.
The White House and Congress claimed throughout the process that we must retain private insurance because Americans desire choice, and this has been framed as choice of insurance. However, this is a false concept. No person can anticipate what their health care needs will be or which insurance will be best. Health care needs change the day a patient has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious illness. We all need the same health insurance: one that covers all medically necessary care when and where we need it. Those of us who travel and listen find that people in America desire choice of health care provider and choice of treatment: the two choices that private health insurers restrict.
So what are the White House and Congress really saying when they claim that we must retain a private insurance model? That they are unwilling to take on these powerful industries, and so we, the people, must be willing to compromise and work within their framework. Mohandas Gandhi said:
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
When it comes to health reform, compromise on the fundamentals is unacceptable because the human costs are continued preventable deaths, continued suffering as patients fight for needed care, and continued bankruptcy from medical debt as families struggle to pay for deductibles and uncovered services. In a study published in Health Affairs in January 2008 that looked at the top nineteen industrialized nations, the United States ranked the worst—we have the highest number of preventable deaths (101,000 each year) because we lack a health system. All of the other industrialized nations have health systems based on the principles of health care as a human right: universality, equity, and accountability.
Why We Failed
Why have the American people been denied this same right? As I look back at the health reform process, I see three serious errors: a willingness to compromise, a lack of clarity about what we require, and a fear that failure to pass reform will have electoral consequences. These are the areas we must address as a people if we want to see real change in this nation, not just in health care but also in many areas that affect our ability to survive on this planet.
The willingness to compromise has occurred repeatedly at the state level. As a result, fewer people have access to care, and health care costs continue to rise; the fundamental problems are not corrected. This willingness to compromise is based on a real sense of desperation. We see real suffering. We want to do something. We are told that this reform, whatever it is, is the best we can get this time. We accept that and tell ourselves that it is something, it is a step.
As the congressional fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program, I saw this desperate attempt to pass something, anything, rise to the surface in the final weeks of the reform process. Patients and their families were brought into Congress to tell their stories of abuse at the hands of private insurers. Well-meaning legislators looked them in the eye and told them that this reform would change that. When I challenged the truth of that response, I was told, often in heated tones, that they (the legislators) had to do something and that at least this reform would help some people. I could only think of those who would not be helped. What about them?
The lack of clarity was grounded in the belief that if we simply advocated based on principles such as access and affordability, then the legislation would meet those principles. Legislators and pro-reform groups were content to speak based on principles as long as they were not challenged about whether those principles were being met. We must go beneath the surface of simple principles, educate ourselves, and define what is acceptable and what isn't. If we don't know exactly what we are asking for, we won't get it. And we mustn't be afraid to ask for what we require. As a people, we have become willing to accept crumbs when we require so much more than crumbs.
The final mistake was to pin the results of the upcoming elections to the success or failure of passing reform. Those who were reluctant to support the legislation were forced to support it in the end or risk being blamed for possible electoral consequences. As has often happened in past campaigns, people were forced to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of for what they truly wanted.
We Can Still Create a National Health Program!
So what do we do now that a health bill has been signed? Now that the clamor has quieted, it is time for a civilized discussion of what our health needs are and how best to meet them. This discussion is unlikely to occur in a mainstream media dominated by advertising dollars from health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. We will need to have this discussion at a more personal level and through independent sources of media. We must educate ourselves and those around us about what is possible to achieve in this nation.
It is possible to create a national health program in which every person living in this country is able to receive the same high standard of medical care whenever and wherever they need it, without fear of financial consequences. We call this health security. Other advanced nations have achieved this goal. The United States has not, and is currently ranked thirty-seventh in the world for health outcomes. We spend more per capita on health care than every advanced nation, yet leave a third of our population either completely on the outside or vulnerable to financial ruin should they have a serious health problem.
Physicians for a National Health Program, founded in 1987, educates and advocates for a health system that will improve our health outcomes and provide health security based on the evidence of what has worked in our nation and what is effective in other advanced nations. We envision a lifelong universal health system—much like traditional Medicare—that is nationwide. We envision a system that allows patients to choose where they receive their care, permits caregivers and patients to determine the best course of treatment with assistance from evidence-based data, controls costs in a rational way through simplified administration and negotiation of fair prices, and is progressively financed. Its publicly funded nature would make it transparent and accountable. Because it would be privately delivered, it would allow caregivers to compete based on quality of care provided. Private health insurers would be relegated to a position of offering supplemental plans and possibly providing administrative support.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that to witness an injustice and not work to correct it is in itself an act of violence. As a physician and an advocate for nonviolence, I cannot ignore the injustice of the great health inequality that exists in our nation or ignore those in need who cannot afford medical treatment. We have delayed this struggle for too long. Alice Walker said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." So, let's do it. We have the resources. Now we must create the political will. Together, we can create a health justice movement, educate ourselves, speak with clarity, and organize independently of any political party. Please join us. You can learn more at www.pnhp.org or join the grassroots movement at www.healthcare-now.org.
Dr.Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician who serves as the congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the board of Healthcare-NOW! She is one of the "Baucus 8."
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=may2010flowers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)