But the
hour-long interview that I just watched was filmed two years ago, when Glenn Greenwald was
relatively unknown, and had just published his book, With Liberty and
Justice for Some. The central premise of the book? That our political
institutions have become so corrupted that we now have a two-tiered system of
justice—one for the rich and powerful, the other for the rest of us.
A defining
moment for Greenwald was Gerald
Ford’s pardon
of Richard Nixon. From
then on, the idea that we had to “look forward, move on, achieve closure” meant
that every president since then joins the old boys network. A classic case,
according to Greenwald, was how even in the interregnum of winning the election
and the inauguration, Obama was slithering out of persecution of the Bush
administration for war crimes, for lying to the American people and to
Congress, for launching an aggressive war. Which, by the way, was the key crime
of Adolf Hitler that the United States and the world charged in the Nuremberg Trials after
World War II.
And it’s a
clear path—the lack of prosecution of Richard Nixon lead to the lack of
persecution for Irangate
and high officials in the Reagan
administration, the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm, the torture
and abuses of human rights in the Bush years. And as Greenwald points out,
anybody who suggests that Bush be held to justice has instantly self-marginalized
himself.
What’s
particularly curious is—where’s the outrage? We are, after all, living in the
most connected era in history. I can now tell you that in Syria, the foreign minister has
appeared to agree
to demands to allow international inspection or control. A hundred and fifty
years ago, people were still fighting in wars after the truce had been
declared.
By now,
everyone can see the problem: we have an oligarchy. Members of Congress spend
half of their time—minimally—struggling to get elected. And that money doesn’t
come from you and me. Unless, of course, your last name is Rockefeller….
The other
curious thing is how easy it should be, hypothetically, to solve the whole
thing. Look, other governments have found out or figured out ways to take the
money out of politics. Why can’t we?
We could
start with simply funding public elections. Punto—oh, and can we put an end to television
advertising? Debates, yes—but a president or senator isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a
product. Though they have become so….
The next
thing to do would be to throw out all the fancy voting apparatus and go back to
the paper ballot and the cardboard box. The voting machine industry, by the
way, is highly technical, extremely expensive, and is dominated by about three
companies, all headed by rabid Republicans.
We also are
going to have to increase minimum wage. Oh, and speaking of which—and speaking
also of the corrosive effect of money on public policy—here’s Bill Moyers on
the other NRA.
In
June, the National Restaurant Association boasted that its lobbyists had stopped minimum wage increases in 27 out
of 29 states in 2013. In Connecticut, which increased its state minimum wage, a
raise in the base pay for tipped workers such as waitresses and bartenders
vanished in the final bill. A similar scenario unfolded in New York State: It
increased its minimum wage, but the NRA’s last-minute lobbying derailed raising
the pre-tip wage at restaurants and bars. The deals came despite polls showing
80 percent support for raising the minimum wage.
Rounding
back to Greenwald, he argues that we have a system in which the powerful get
away—figuratively and even occasionally literally—with murder, whereas the poor
are more easily incarcerated than ever.
OK—jailing
is one thing we do to the poor. The other thing we do—as I learned in class
today—is to use them as cannon fodder. That’s what my student taught me, as she
showed me a photo on her iPhone of her nephew, who had just enlisted in the
army.
Well, he
thought it was all he could do. He had just turned 18, he had bad grades and
couldn’t go to the university, and jobs? Are you kidding?
I tried to
be hopeful; my student was near tears. But the reality is that if her nephew
comes back, his life may be just as hellish as it was in Iraq. It may, in fact,
become something like Iraq 2.0, with the terrors being internal and systemic,
as opposed to external and random.
Oh, and the
people who wrecked the system, so that there are no jobs, and kids have to off
to war? The criminals in the thousand-dollar suits? They’re free, and riding a
soaring stock market right now….
Greenwald
also makes the point that we have blended the lines between the public and
private sectors. And nowhere is this more true than in “national security.” Who
would have imagined a world in which we have out-sourced granting security
access? It’s madness.
And
Greenwald’s observation that journalists have changed is interesting—instead of
the hard-bitten, cynical, go-after-the-bastards-and-damn-the-costs guys of the
past, we now have people who are employed by corporations, and who know how the
corporation works. Which—news flash, here—is by smiling, going along with the
herd, ducking your head and not rocking boats.
Well, I
came upon Greenwald by listening to “Conversations with History,” a great,
hour-long program coming out of UCLA.
Yesterday, I watched William
Cronon, the president of the American
Historical Association and a professor of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Today was Greenwald.
And both
men were inspiring. Oddly, both men spoke briefly of the necessity of hope.
Given that Cronon is a specialist in Environmental History, and Greenwald in
First Amendment and Civil Rights, one wonders…
Which man
has the most reason to be hopeful?
Or the most
need?
