perfidy

I don't follow. What's the connection between class and voting?

Investors 

So I guess you're an equality of opportunity guy, I'm more an equality of outcome guy. I'm willing to leave it at that on an agree to disagree. 

India 

I'm of the opinion that imperialism is never benign. It always involves subjugating another people and reducing them to a sub-human status. That one form of imperialism appears more benign than another, to draw an analogy, is like saying "Well I shot this guy in the face, but I only knee-capped this other guy." But beyond that, the Amritsar Massacre alone indicates that British conduct on the Indian subcontinent, despite attempts by the Viceroy's office to distance themselves from the event, carried negative consequences for the indigenous population. 

Americanism 

I'm not responding to Judson because he can sit and spin. I'm responding to Steve. I don't believe in the freedom to bear arms. Yet I do believe in the freedom to arm bears. What happens to my citizenship? 

Teacher's Unions 

Well we're kind of on different pages on this one, since I'm in post-secondary education. Things are probably a bit different there, as are the unions. My first concern is always my students. I will gladly continue to teach at sub-minimum wage levels without a raise. When I worked at a certain Jesuit University that shall remain nameless, I personally opposed a TA walkout to protest budget cuts because I didn't want to leave students hanging, even a little bit. I honestly don't know what's going on with secondary education teacher's unions. But here in the city colleges, they're just trying to get a few more dollars for adjuncts, if possible. If not, I won't strike, I won't quit, I'll continue to give my best possible effort as a professor. It's all I know how to do (aside from playing the fiddle, I'm nearly competent with it these days) and it's all I've ever wanted to do.

Buckethead wrote that, "In our country, the federal workers' and teacher's unions are far more powerful than they should be." 

A teacher's union is currently attempting to secure better wages for me and other adjunct professors. A powerful teacher's union can help me and others.
 

Buckethead wrote that, "Considering the vast expansion of the investor class, ironically one of Marx' dearest hope - that the proletariat would own the means of production, has kind of happened." 

Even though this was an off-hand remark, I'm still going to comment. As I've argued before, the world has changed a great deal since the mid-late nineteenth century. At this point, in the United States, there are very few urban industrial workers involved in manufacturing thanks to globalization, environmental restrictions, the shortsightedness of unions in the 1950s and 1960s, and other factors. Workers, and members of the working class, are now overwhelmingly people involved in the service sector. They are waiters, busboys, pizza deliverers, janitors, auto mechanics, grocery store personnel, etc. They, and educated, therefore technically middle class people, who nonetheless have a low income such as archivists, adjunct professors, and the like, do not have excess capital for investment.

Investors, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly middle and upper income middle and upper class people who, while they work, are involved in white-collar office, financial, business, and other professions. Workers are wage-workers. They don't have salaries. They have no capital for investment, they are not investors, therefore, the workers, overall, do not kind of own the means of production. 

There are and have been manufacturing plants, and some other businesses, that are employee owned, but they are few and far between. They also have a tendency to go under since the white-collar types would sooner buy cheaper goods made in other countries where operating costs are lower due to a lack of minimum wage, fewer, if any, environmental restrictions, etc. Hence, globalization rears its ugly head to defeat employee owned businesses in the United States. But back to the aforementioned workers in the first paragraph, janitors do not own the businesses they clean. Busboys and waitstaff do not own the restaurant. Auto mechanics do not usually own the shop, but are rather employed by it. Therefore, it is not fair to say that the workers even kind of own the means of production. The vast majority of wealth and the means of production that exist, in whatever form, are largely concentrated at the top of the pyramid. Besides, Marx prophesied total worker ownership of the means of production, and society is very far away from that. 

Anti-Irish-Americanism in the Ivory Tower 

In case anyone is interested, I'll explain the presence of anti-Irish-Americanism within American ethnic history. Since the 1960s, with the birth of new social history, American ethnic history became a heavily studied field. As such, Irish Americans have historically been the whipping boy of American ethnic history. For example, Oscar Handlin in Boston's Immigrants painted the Irish as racist, mean-spirited, and money-grubbing. Hasia Diner in "Erin's Daughters in America" painted Irish immigrant women as insane, perpetually drunk, and morally bankrupt. Irish men were painted as drunken wife beaters who often abandoned their families. Noel Ignatiev in "How the Irish Became White," argued that Irish-Americans, get this, entirely and consciously made an effort to become white by hating and mistreating African-Americans. The notion of an entire ethnic group consciously and totally making an effort to do anything is absurd. Did all the Irish in America get together at a caucus and unanimously vote to become white? I'd like to see the minutes of that meeting. The whole whiteness concept is equally absurd, but perhaps that's a post for another time. 

Other historians not even dealing with Irish-American topics nevertheless can't resist taking a swipe at American ethnic history's favorite target. Deborah Dash Moore, in "To the Golden Cities," chronicling primarily Jewish migration from New York to Miami Beach and from Chicago to California, quoted several people who felt they just had to get out of Boston because of Father Coughlin. He lived in Detroit. How was he a threat in Boston? According to Moore, each and every Irish-American in Boston was a raging anti-Semite who worshipped Father Coughlin. Robert Orsi, in "The Madonna of 115th Street," claimed that Irish Americans dominated the Catholic Church and virulently hated Italian Americans for being such bad Catholics. Hence, Irish Americans are evil. By the way, Irish Americans were always virulently conservative in their political views according to many ethnic historians, who argue that conservatism makes them evil. I'm sure Buckethead will enjoy that. But, these historians say, you'll never find, say, a socialist or even an MADL Irish American. They're like Santa Claus. 

But, Mike, you might ask, why aren't the WASPs hated and reviled by American ethnic historians? Simple. When the parents or grandparents of many historians arrived in the United States, they never saw any WASPs. The Irish, however, as previous arrivals, occupied many foreman and floor management positions in industry, and therefore created closer quarters and opportunities for conflict. Many Irish-Americans not of the middle class were also in very close quarters with the new immigrants of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

But there's something deeper here. New social historians have glorified and lauded the actions of reformist WASPs, such as Jane Adams, while failing to recognize that those reformists were attempting to forcibly assimilate their grandparents. But the new social historians still just can't get enough of those temperance/abstinence advocating, evangelizing, criticizing progressives. No, no. The progressives were great. Irish Americans, according to the aforementioned and other historians, were more evil than Satan himself. 

Is all this criticism fair? No. Particularly because the strokes are so broad. Of course there are Irish Americans who are racist. But what American ethnic group is utterly devoid of racism right down to every member? Are other groups entirely devoid of anti-Semitism? My mother used to tell me there's good and bad in all kinds. Apparently, other American ethnic historians weren't paying attention when their mother told them that.

Had Thatcher's Tory government made alternate arrangements for workers and miners that would have eased their transition. But they were pretty much just out on the street. It doesn't make much sense to solve high unemployment problems by creating more unemployment. As to Thatcher overhauling Britain and improving its economy, historian Kenneth O. Morgan, in The Oxford History of Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) argues that while Thatcher's policy did introduce some recovery to Britain's economy in the early 1980s, the economy tanked again in the late 1980s after a decade or so of Thatcherism. According to Morgan, 

"Most serious of all [difficulties], the apparent revival in the economy began to lose credibility. The tax-cutting policy of the Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, was now seen to have led to a huge balance of payments deficit, at 20 billion pounds the worst figure on record. Unemployment rose sharply and the pound came under pressure. Worse still, the conquest of inflation, the government's main boast, was now threatened by a consumer-credit and spending boom. Bank rate soared to 15 per cent, and the impact was felt by every mortgaged home-owner in the land" (Morgan 660). 

[Note: I tried to block this appropriately but can't figure out how. Apologies.] 

[ed: fixed it for you!]

Morgan goes on to describe the backbench revolt that removed Thatcher from Tory leadership, partially because of the economic dislocation, partially because her "imperious style of leadership now seemed more of a liability" (Ibid). Thatcher's government saw the same cyclical ebb and flow that affects market economies in general, with some policies reviving elements of the economy, and some policies injuring elements of the economy. But overall it trundled along, up and down, like any other market. Nonetheless, unemployment, particularly for laborers, was a perennial problem during Thatcher's government that she and her cabinet never really sorted out. 

As to the Falklands, given your comments, the inhabitants, the hundred or so sheep on the islands, must have declared themselves subjects of baaaritain. B'dom. Chish! 

While I appreciate your comments on British policy in Ireland, I'm not sure that they, the peoples of the Indian subcontinent, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Iraqis, black South Africans, the Sudanese, or anyone who had to put up with Cecil Rhodes at some point would agree on their "largely positive impact on history in general." I'm sure you were referring to Britain's representative democracy as example, various contributions in letters, arts, and sciences, and such, which is true. For a small country, they made an indellible mark on the world and offered many positive contributions. But the aforementioned subject peoples were probably glad to remove that mark (work in progress for the north of Ireland), and wish that the British would have made their contributions from home instead of inviting themselves to dine at their tables.

Correct. The masses never got behind a global class war/revolution, or even in Imperial Russia. The Marxist prophecy never materialized. It didn't happen. Marx prophesied that the vanguard of the proletariat would initiate the class war and the rest of the proletariat would quickly follow. That did not occur. As far as I know, Jesus hasn't shown up again either. The Marxist prophecy will never happen because the world changed significantly after the mid-nineteenth century, and no, the workers never got behind it, nor will they ever.

The United States does have a class system, but as you indicated it is what the sociologists call an open stratification system. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day so the sociology folks were bound to get something right thanks to law of averages. But still. Just because mobility is possible between classes it does not mean the classes do not exist. They are fluid, but they are there. Upward and downward mobility is possible, people can go from working to middle to upper and back down to working again. But at every step, there is a step. A permanent social structure is called a caste system. That's when the social ladder is entirely hereditary and is also known as a closed stratification system where no mobility is possible.

In the United States, classes are based entirely upon wealth and education. There is no hereditary aristocracy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a class structure. See, in Britain and much of Europe, with the industrial revolution, the hereditary aristocracy constituted the upper class, non-titled wealthy and well-to-do educated professionals, shopkeepers, etc. constituted the middle, urban and rural workers the working class. With the industrial revolution, Britain and Europe moved from a caste to a class social structure when mobility became possible between the working and middle classes. Not guaranteed, no, but possible. Hell, some people in the middle class even bought themselves a title to move into the aristocracy. Thus, it is mobility that distinguishes a class from a caste structure, and the United States holds the possiblity fo mobility, be it upward or downward. My terminology in describing the United States as a nation with a class structure was correct.

John writes, "I still want to know how Mike resolves Marxist orthodoxy with an evident love of the United States and its ways ..."

Easy. I'm not an Orthodox Marxist. I'm not really a Marxist for that matter. I use it when applicable to historical circumstances.

Buckethead writes,

"If American historians hate and villify the Irish Americans, they are the only ones doing it. I haven't noticed any anti-Irish bigotry in the wider world."

Yeah. No shit. I never accused the wider world of anti-Irish bigotry. I wrote precisely: "That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years." This is an old ethnic animosity maintained exclusively within the Ivory Tower.

As to the rich man's war/poor man's fight issue, your argument is that that's the way those things are done. Sure, it's the way of the world. But if we all collectively shrug our shoulders and say, "oh well that's how it is," we'll never see any changes. No, we can't put old rich men in trenches. But how about their children? They don't serve. What if they had to? What if the working class, that has historically constituted much of the American military, threw down their rifles and said, "fight your own damn war."

Of course this is an historical issue as opposed to a present issue. With the professionalization of the American military class issues are becoming less acute. The military itself is becoming an opportunity for upward mobility once service is complete. They aren't paid very much while serving, but there are opportunities for education and the acquisition of skills. So the rich man's war and poor man's fight might be evolving into a non-issue.

Steve, I'm going to quibble with your statement that Reagan, Thatcher, Roosevelt, and Churchill were superhero defenders of freedom. Emphasis on the hero with Thatcher if you know what I mean. Roosevelt and his administration I'll grant you conditionally, aside from racism in the New Deal, ignoring the Holocaust, denying European Jews access to the United States, Executive Order 9066 that interned Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, etc. But he qualifies as a defender of freedom in that he led the United States through most of the second World War and did a lot to bring down Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Mistakes were made, but challenges also met. 

I could say much the same about Churchill. His actions while in the Imperial office, unleashing the Black and Tans on Ireland, and in negotiating the 1921 Treaty with Ireland significantly limited the freedom of subject peoples. But for two years, he and Britain stood alone against Germany. Like Roosevelt in the U.S., he led Britain through the second World War and also did a lot to bring down Nazi Germany. 

I'll leave alone the Reagan issue, and will offer to agree to disagree on that score. On Thatcher, however, I will make a few remarks. Thatcher did a great deal to limit the freedom of British workers and engaged in the most brutal campaign against Catholics in the north of Ireland since her Tory predecessor Edward Heath's government sanctioned the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry. Under Thatcher and her own orders, rather than permitting the Blanketmen to wear their own clothes with prisoner of war status, many of the Blanketmen starved to death. In other words, Thatcher preferred that northern Irish Catholic insurgent prisoners starve rather than allowing them to wear civilian clothes. 

Thatcher refused to negotiate with anyone. She would not negotiate with Irish insurgents, she would not negotiate with striking workers. She responded to strikes by closing factories and collieries, and putting thousands of British workers out on the street. She and her administration virtually liquidated the TUC, the cornerstone of British organized labor. She went to war with Argentina over the Falkland islands, a dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica, in an archaic colonial war specifically designed to drum up reactionary patriotism. Thus, Thatcher beat up sixth graders as an adult. In the last year of her administration, Thatcher introduced a poll tax. Poll taxes are a tremendous limitation on freedom. 

As to preserving the freedom of America by winning the Cold War, at what point could the Soviets have conquered the United States? The strategy was they nuke us, then we nuke them, and it's all over. Cold War brinksmanship could have gotten us all killed. And I haven't admitted that Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold War. I still adhere to my thesis that the Soviets simply couldn't maintain the House that Stalin built and I'm not convinced that it was because they got into a spending arms race with the U.S. But we've had this discussion before, and it will remain forever unresolved and disagreed upon between you and I. 

That aside, the above League of Superheros members Churchill and Roosevelt did lead the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold War, according to you, not me, but all of them did a great deal to limit the freedom of their own and subject peoples in various ways.

Buckethead, there are two points I will concede, IE your promotion of debate, and knowing a lefty to see one, but others I will concede partially, or not at all. I'm not convinced that racism has been reduced quite to the extent that you argue. Anecdotally, the example of the people you work with would indicate a reduction, and it does. But what is the overall and broad extent to which racism has been reduced? Difficult to tell, and I will gladly admit that I don't know the answer. So, point partially conceded. Next, calling for a million Mogadishus and the deaths of American soldiers might very well indicate a hatred for America, or it can be an exaggeration device to oppose the war in the most brutal and shocking terms possible. It could be shock value. While I do not advocate the death of anyone, as I said before, others did say that, and maybe it's out of hatred for America. Point partially conceded. 

As to Reagan and Thatcher winning the Cold War, this is inflammatory and I'm indulging myself, but I'll write it anyway. Big Fucking Deal. What do they want, medals? I won a bunch of schoolyard fights during my adolescence and I'm not looking for a pat on the back. I lost a couple, too, but we won't talk about that. 

Finally, do I hate America? No. There are many things to like about America at the present time. Unlike most European countries, Britain, and Ireland, we have bars open until four, at least in Chicago and Peoria, IL, and elsewhere I'm sure. I haven't been compelled to serve in the military, auto fuel is cheap (compared to Europe/Britain/Ireland), I can vote, the grocery stores have lots of good stuff to eat, I can participate in cultural activities related to both my ethnic groups as opposed to just one, and the list goes on. Are there things I don't like about America? Why, yes. Yes, there are. But back to things I like, and to tie it all together, here's a final question. Do I believe in the necessity of revolution in the United States? No. The system of which you are so fond makes it possible to solve problems constitutionally rather than violent means. It favors the wealthy over the poor in many cases (a thing I don't like), it's slow, and it takes a long time, but patience is a virtue I possess. Otherwise, I couldn't be an effective teacher. Violent revolution would be looking for the quick fix, but there are no quick fixes or easy solutions to societal problems. Another point partially conceded to the Buckethead. 

So there you have it. As my own little post-script, was the American Civil War a rich man's war and a poor man's fight? It was. People in the Union could pay money to the government, or hire substitutes to serve in their stead. All the bullshit the postmodernist historians have been spouting lately about how that really wasn't the case, well, hazut! That's just one more way for American historians to criticize Irish-Americans, easily the most hated and villified ethnic group in American ethnic historiography over the last 40 years. But I'll veer away from the conspiratorial rant. In the Confederacy, poor men from the backcountry served in the infantry to preserve the Confederacy, slavery, and the state's rights backdoor to the preservation of slavery for the benefit of large plantation owners who were rich, while women on the home front starved. In both cases, poor men died to do the will of wealthy, powerful men.

Recently, I have observed a great deal of rhetoric from various pundits such as those on the Fox News Channel, the Weekly Standard, this little banner above our blog, and other media outlets that profess to be conservative, right of center, what have you, about how "the left hates America." I have some observations and questions in regard to this assertion. 

First, an observation. The aforementioned pundits have a little song with a good beat and you can dance to it. The little song begins with how Reagan won the Cold War. The next line is some sort of attempt at name-calling, IE "I think liberals [MADL] are a bunch of whiners," from Anne Coulter, for example, or Michael Moore is telling lies, from Fox News. The next line has something to do with support for the troops or war is good or something to that effect, and this often comes from people who have never served in the military nor would they allow their children to do so (I believe that it is because American wars are usually, if not always, a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, but this is beside the current point). A recently added line dealt with Francophobia. The new line in this ditty is how "the left hates America."

A second observation. As I have mentioned before, debate in this country typically involves an attempt to shout the other side down and describe what their opponents think without actually consulting them. Buckethead indicated that this rhetorical methodology is acceptable; I believe it is not. But disagreements between the two of us are frequent to say the least. Be that as it may, arguing that "the left hates America" falls into the category I have described in the current paragraph. 

Now for the questions. What is this left of which you (aforementioned pundits) speak? Who is this enigmatic left that you are pointing your fingers at and shouting, "J'accuse!" Oh, pardon me. In their language it is, "I freedom-accuse you!" But still, who are you talking about? At least Fox News singled out Michael Moore to provide something other than a broad stroke. But I can remember my early teen years, when I would describe myself as a leftist, my Dad challenged me to think about what that means. Similarly, I challenge the pundits, who and what are you talking about when you say, "the left?" 

Second question. How do you know this left of which you speak hates America? Have you asked them? Have you polled urban areas, started with a question about their political orientation and then proceeded to ask them what they think? "Do you hate America?" the pollster asks a low-income grad student/adjunct professor in a major urban area. Has that been done? Or, do you simply glance at what has been written, taking a statement such as, "There are significant inequities and injustices in American society," and shout, "Freedom-accuse!" Such a statement as that indicates that you hate America!” 

Third question. If this left does indeed hate America, what are you going to do about it? May I make a suggestion? Perhaps you could use this to discredit a political party. But hmmm, what oh what party could that be? Perhaps one that is part of this left? Maybe the SWP? The SDP? The Green party (though I take some issue with their inclusion into a left camp, but others see it that way). No, no, those parties are insignificant. Perhaps you could set your sights on the Democratic Party! Why yes! Never mind the fact that the Democrats are capitalists and just as conservative as you, still in favor of tax cuts for the rich, just at a reduced rate! Never mind the fact that the Democrats didn't oppose the war as much as you made them out to oppose the war, who cares? There are two parties defined by their opposition to each other who really think pretty much the same thing, and this country ain't big enough for the both of them. So go ahead, hurl insults and engage in name-calling to discredit the other party who thinks the same thing as you just has a different lever on election day! Make wild broad stroke accusations about people you haven't even spoken to! So who cares if we're lying or telling the truth! If we say that this one group hates America, we discredit the party that pretends to represent them only really doesn't! 

My last questions. Why do these pundits feel the need to do this sort of thing? It strikes me as dirty pool. Maybe they don't feel confident enough in their arguments or beliefs to win debates solely on the basis of those arguments. Or maybe it's just quicker and easier to throw sand in a man's eyes and kick him in the balls instead of a straight fight. So I'll ask, either rhetorically or prevailing on Buckethead to pose the response on behalf of those who might or might not be his ideological brethren. Why the name-calling? Why are you insisting that the left (whatever that is) hates America? On what do you base your opinions? What are you trying to achieve? "I hate you and you hate me and you hate America." What does this accomplish?

To respond, albeit a bit late, to John's big question, how oh how shall the United States foster republican government in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'll offer my thoughts. First, this begs the question, is it the place of the United States to foster any sort of government in those countries? Well, we broke it so we'd better buy it. At this point it does seem irresponsible not to lend a hand, seeing as we're pretty much the folks that punched them in the nose. I'm uncomfortable with American conduct viz-a-viz those countries, but what's done is done, and I admit that fostering republican governments is probably the way to proceed at the moment.

The thing is, if those republican governments should return a majority of anti-republican parties who want to remake the political structure of their own country, then tough. We can't say, "You can have a representative government, provided they play ball on our field by our rules." We used to say, "You can have a repressive dictatorship (and we said this to Hussein as well) provided you play ball," so no more of that shit. Pays your money, takes your chances.

But cliches aside, how to foster republican government in Afghanistan? No idea. That's a tough one. As to Iraq, the answer, though this might seem strange, could very well lie in Europe.

European states rely heavily on the near east for oil. The United States relies more on its own resources and South America, but we're talking about Europe and the near east. Oil producing countries tend to lean toward the repressive dictatorship side of things, as those who control the oil tend to control the country. Take Saudi Arabia for instance. On the other hand, as a friend of mine not long ago pointed out, in a strange reversal of fortune, my grandmother's country, Lebanon, has a significantly more representative government than other near eastern states at this point. Despite the civil war of the 1970s and 1980s, and a complete collapse of governance, as well as the personal loss of family members and possibly a legitimate claim on an olive tree farm, Lebanon has nonetheless risen from the ashes like the proverbial phoenix. It may be that it is because Lebanon has no oil.

Therefore, remove the oil from the equation, and possibly pave the way for representative government in Iraq. If the Europeans switch to synthetic/alternative fuels when they become available, or start driving hybrids, it could eliminate the he-who-controls-the-oil-controls-the-government-in-a-non-representative-fashion factor. If that is the case, the answer to Iraqi representative government lies not in Baghdad, but in Paris.

According to CNN.com, a lawsuit against Kraft Foods for devilishly marketing Oreo cookies containing trans fats has been dropped, article here. Good grief. The helmet advocates nearly went off the deep end with this one. People who previously thought that mass produced cookies, fast food, or any food high in saturated fats are healthy, and are now shocked, shocked to find that they are not, are definitely fooling themselves. If you want healthy foods, eat a fucking vegetable. It's the green stuff available at your local grocer; either fresh, canned or frozen. I like fresh asparagus the best. Give it a try. Maybe you'll like it too.

It's also called personal responsibility, people. Start taking some. I think that Stephen Joseph, who brought the suit, had his helmet on a little too tight and it cut off the flow of blood to his brain.

Regarding Amina Lawal's impending execution, it is in fact set for 3 June. She was sentenced 19 August 2002. My apologies. In other words, she doesn't have much time.

On 19 August, Nigerian citizen Amina Lawal will be stoned to death for the crime of adultery. She has recently given birth, and her accusers claim that the baby is evidence of the adultery. The Spanish chapter of Amnesty International has provided an Urgent Action electronic petition here to request that her death sentence be rescinded.

In all likelihood, people associate Massachusetts with political leaders who publicly advocated, worked toward, or voted for initiatives that were left of center. John, Robert, and especially Ted Kennedy advocated or actively supported, at least publicly, civil rights legislation. Ted Kennedy, for example, incensed people in Southie, traditionally Democratic voters, when he supported public school integration. To put it simply, while the people of Southie, in general, did not support integration initiatives, their political representative did. While John and Robert Kennedy were virulently anti-Communist, Robert softened his stance in the late 1960s, and both did publicly support civil rights legislation. In other matters, Ted Kennedy has consistently voted for left of center legislation in the Senate. To mention them here would belabor the point.
Other Massachusetts politicians have similarly advanced left of center policies. Mike Dukakis, the last gasp of the left in the Democratic party, was very left of center publicly. While he was also an elitist who did not support public higher education, he was by and large left of center, and certainly more so than any other candidate to run for President on the Democratic ticket since. Machine Democrats such as Curley were also economically and politically left of center in an American New Deal sort of way, despite the racism inherent in Machine Democrat practices. Bear in mind, by the standard of the times, prior to the 1960s or even Seventies, a politician could be left of center but not a 1990s style diversity advocate. As a side note, advocates of diversity tend to be hypocritical because they don't really advocate diversity, just argue that if it's not white male it's good. But that's another post perhaps.

Beyond politicians, however, the general populace has also demonstrated left of center leanings. In 1972, Massachusetts was the only state McGovern carried. He was also very left of center, certainly by American standards. I wouldn't dismiss the labor aspect of Massachusetts. Labor is the heart and soul of the economic left. Of course, the new faux left doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about economic or political issues; it's all about wearing helmets and not saying bad things that hurt other people's feelings for them. In other words, if labor has remained important to Massachusetts, then the state is truly more left of center than people who think culture is the be-all-end-all of human existence.

In other words, I don't think that Massachusetts has been associated with Communism. I think it's been considered more liberal by the modern American definition. Of course, some John Birch types and other right of center folks did call modern American definition liberalism Communism. But they were wrong. Know why? Everyone I've mentioned above, including McGovern, was still a capitalist and an upholder of American representative democratic governmental systems. But even those MADLs of Massachusetts were from urban Massachusetts. There has been an urban/rural divide in American society pretty much from the get-go, and everywhere in the western world urban areas tend to be more progressive and rural areas conservative or reactionary. Therefore, it's mostly urban Massachusetts where MADLs can be found. So, as you correctly point out, the characterization of Massachusetts as Communist is way off the mark, but there is some justification for looking to urban Massachusetts for left of center politicians, and in some cases, populace.

Public smoking bans do fall under a different set of ethical issues than most personal liberties. As public smoking is possibly a public health nuisance or threat, it's not like free speech or freedom of the press. But part of my point was that public smoking bans are just one of many objectives of the Neo-reformists. In antebellum America, reformists initiated movements to abolish slavery. They also initiated temperance movements and rabid Protestant Christian Evangelicalism. While abolitionism was a noble cause in that it demanded an end to slavery, temperance and evangelicalism sought to force everyone else to live their lives the way that Evangelical reformers did.

I'm drawing an analogy here. Public smoking bans might be the parallel to abolitionism as an effort to create a greater good. But beneath those efforts for the greater good, or right alongside them, are efforts to make everyone else live exactly the way these present-day reformists, who are frequently guests on Oprah Winfrey's talk-show, live. In addition, public smoking bans are part of an effort to make everyone safe in a world where life turns on a dime, nothing can be predicted, and anything can happen.

If the neo-reformist and pro-safety camps are indeed coming together and pulling their resources, they will not stop at public smoking bans. They won't be happy until everyone has a helmet and everyone lives they way they think people should live. In addition, lots of abolitionists were just as racist as the people who owned slaves. Maybe Neo-reformists pushing the public smoking ban don't really care about public health. Maybe they just want to legislate their narrow vision of morality. When it comes to a moral issue on which we cannot agree, it's best to leave it out of the legislation. Permit it for those who want it, by not outlawing cigarettes altogether, but don't subject people who don't want it to it. A public smoking ban is a way to do that, perhaps. A counter-argument is that non-smokers could simply stay away from bars, but that's not fair.

Of course the problem is that the Neo-reformists don't want to permit naughty things to the people who want them and keep it out of sight for those who don't. Neo-reformists think, "Well, I live my life this way so everybody else has to live their life that way too." Neo-reformists want everyone to wear drab clothing without hooks or fasteners (because they're flashy), not smoke, not drink, not eat red meat, not barbecue, not eat baked potatoes because they're carcinogenic. Of course this brings in the pro-safety camp who agrees with most of the above (except maybe the clothing), and wants everybody to put on a helmet, and wants potential terrorists or people they can paint as such, even though they aren't herded into camps, where they can't hurt the people with helmets on.

The public smoking ban is one thing. It's not the same kind of personal liberty issue. But the pro-safety types want helmets on non-smokers, too, just to be safe. And no baked potatoes, either. The Neo-reformists want to ban cigarettes altogether, because their god told them cigarettes are evil tools of the devil. They have the souls of smokers to save.

I'm back. 

So, speaking of New England, Boston has now banned public smoking. New York City has already done so, and a movement is underway in Chicago that will most likely result in a public smoking ban here as well. Everyone is taking their cues from California on this one. 

So people in those cities, working in the food and drink service industry, will no longer be exposed to the risks of second-hand smoke. While that's certainly understandable as the impetus behind smoking bans, in the bigger picture, there are a couple of other motives behind it.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, and the first half of the twentieth century, reform movements sought to legislate their vision of morality and impose it on everyone else. In both cases, it was drinking that was evil. Now moderate drinking is good for you. While it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the medical profession will ever outline the benefits of moderate smoking (because there are none), these smoking bans do have a certain amount of moral legislation behind them. While providing service employees with smoke-free work environments is fine, moral legislation is dodgy at best. So what's next in this new reform movement? 

My guess is that the new reform movement will center less on the legislation of morality, despite such legislation as a component of the smoking bans, and more on trying to protect people from their own stupidity and errors in judgement. A total ban on smoking has been on the minds of reformers since the early Nineties, and they're sort of accepting a compromise on the public smoking bans. But to protect us from ourselves, galvanized by public smoking ban victories, reformers will demand that smoking anywhere be legislated out of existence. Soon, in their zeal to protect us from our own dumb-assedness, helmets will be required for motorists as well as cyclists. We will have to wear helmets while driving, riding a bus, or crossing a busy city street. Those who do not wear helmets will be fined. 

Since most accidents occur in the home, we will have to wear helmets while preparing dinner. Adult-gates, a version of baby-gates, will be used to separate us from such hazards as bathtubs and pesky formica floors. When we have to shower or stand on kitchen formica, we will have to wear helmets. Activity will be monitored by cameras in the home. 

Red meat will be banned, along with anything that tastes good. We will become a society of non-smoking, non-red meat eating, non-barbecueing (causes cancer too), non-potato-eating (also a carcinogenic substance, apparently), moderate drinkers who must wear helmets while performing ordinary daily tasks. People who might be terrorists will have to sew a crescent onto their clothing, until they can be herded into camps, where they cannot hurt the helmet-clad peoples of America. 

Smoking will of course be permitted in the concentration camps. But just to be on the safe-side, SARS infected blankets will be issued. It's all to keep America safe and wearing their helmets.

An Orthodox Marxist would not necessarily have to hate the United States, but probably would, as the United States is a capitalist nation with a class structure. An Orthodox Marxist would have to advocate the overthrow not just of the United States government and economy, but all governments and capitalist economies throughout the entire world. As I've said before, it's about global class war and revolution. The Vanguard of the Proletariat in America would be responsible for the overthrow of the U.S., but if they're serious about their aims they would have to immediately encourage and coordinate revolutions elsewhere to fulfill the prophecy, and a la the efforts of the Comintern under Leon Trotsky.

Ah, another ad hominem shouter. Racist, too. Fine. If everybody just wants to shout at each other, describe what the opposing camp thinks without consulting them, and then call them stupid, go ahead. I tried. Now I'm giving up.