| Number 437 | August 27, 2009 |
|
This Week: Hopeful Stories, Part I
|
|
Greetings, This week is the first of a series of issues (maybe a series of only two, I don't know yet) about hopeful developments. I think a lot of people aren't seeing these things very clearly, if at all. It's so easy to get caught up in the difficult and horrifying events: the anti-Obama backlash, the economic crisis, climate change, the war in Afghanistan, the ongoing crisis in Israel/Palestine . . . The list could go on for quite a while. All of these things are difficult, and not to be understated. In fact, I write about them all the time. Still, I find myself feeling strangely optimistic in the midst of all this. Maybe it's because I take a long view, or maybe it's because I take my cues from different places than most of my fellow USAmericans. While most of us are trained to be afraid of [fill in the blank] at all times, I have trained myself to focus instead on the currents and developments that are shaping what comes next. Some of them are frightening, surely. But many of them are hopeful and encouraging. Non-frightening events and developments are the subject of the Hope
Series that starts with this Take a look this week and next and see what you think. I'd love to hear your response to some of this stuff. In solidarity, Nygaard |
|
Writing in the London Guardian on September 28th 2008, author John Gray wrote these words: "A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape." Read the entire article—"A Shattering Moment in America's Fall from Power"—here. |
|
On August 17th President Obama gave a speech at the VFW national convention. Speaking about Afghanistan, he said the U.S. military's engagement in Afghanistan "is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity... [T]his is not only a war worth fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people." The good news is that the people of the United States don't seem to be buying this pro-war propaganda. Consider some recent polls. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll released just this month asked, "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, or not?" Despite being thus encouraged to ignore the costs to the Afghan people, 51 percent still said "not worth fighting," the first time that a majority rejected the "war of necessity" argument. The same poll asked, "Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?" Here we see another turnaround: 45 percent said "decreased," while only 24 percent said "increased." A CNN Poll from early August asked simply, "Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?" Result: 54 percent opposed, 41 percent in favor. An Associated Press Poll conducted from July 16-20 asked the same question, with similar results: 53 percent opposed, 44 percent in favor. Back in the month of May CNN asked poll respondents what they thought the U.S. "should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan?" 45 percent said we should "Withdraw Some" or "Withdraw All" while only 26 percent said we should "Send More." Meanwhile, the August 24th NY Times ran a front-page story headlined "U.S. Military Says Its Force in Afghanistan Is Insufficient," in which appeared the following statement: "The White House has been concerned about declining support for the war among the American public." Speaking on the Sunday talk show Meet the Press,, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen responded to the polls by saying, "I'm certainly aware of the criticality of support of the American people for this war and in fact, any war. And so certainly the numbers are of concern." Or, in keeping with the theme of this issue of Nygaard Notes, the numbers are a sign of hope, and a reminder that the U.S. public is not completely susceptible to propaganda. Now it's up to the majority who oppose U.S. policy in Afghanistan to make it known to officials that it is not "the numbers" that are of concern. It's the war itself. In fact, any war. |
|
I've written in these pages recently about the media's phobia, or aversion, or whatever-it-is that makes it very rare, indeed, for a positive reference to a single-payer national health plan to be seen in a mass-circulation publication. Nonetheless, in what I can only imagine is a testimony to the power of a good idea, the people of the United States seem to increasingly support this Idea Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. Consider a few very recent polls. The only poll I could find that actually asked people about single-payer by using the phrase "single-payer" was a TIME Magazine survey taken July 27- 28, 2009 in which they asked, "Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide health care insurance to all Americans?" Favor = 49 percent. Oppose = 46 percent. When the demonized phrase "single-payer" is removed, but the concept remains, support is even higher. In a July poll the Kaiser Family Foundation asked USAmericans if they would favor or oppose "Creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans." (Medicare, for those who don't know, is a single-payer plan.) Favor = 59 percent. Oppose = 36 percent. About the same time as the Kaiser poll was going on, CBS News/New York Times also did a poll, asking "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan—something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get—that would compete with private health insurance plans?" Favor = 66 percent Oppose = 27 percent Further testimony to the growing support for single-payer can be found in the increasing energy that "free-marketeers" are expending to attack it. A headline in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages a couple of weeks ago read, "Medicare For All Isn't The Answer." The Albuquerque Journal of Monday July 20 headlined an opinion piece (by the president of a local libertarian think tank) "‘Medicare for All' Will Bankrupt the United States." Yet, look at the surveys. They appear to show that these scare tactics are not working. Good for us! |
|
One good thing about the global financial crisis is that the days of the so-called "Washington Consensus" are coming to an end. The Los Angeles Times has described the Washington Consensus as "an agenda of economic liberalization and privatization that the U.S. has pushed for years as a strategy for economic growth." There is a lot of evidence that the ability of the United States to "push" any agenda is declining, more or less rapidly, as the power of other nations to push their own agendas increases. Decline of the Financial Empire Consider a little-reported event that occurred in mid-June in a place called Yekaterinburg, Russia. This was the first-ever summit meeting of the so-called "BRIC" countries: Brazil, Russia, India and China. These four countries account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40 per cent of the Earth's population. The Russian media cited comments by China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei to the effect that "The upcoming summit . . . will ... focus on the question of reforming the global financial system." Not only did these nations start this discussion without the help of the U.S., but the U.S., which had asked to attend, was denied admittance. Perhaps that was because the group has a specific goal of "the creation of a multi-polar world" that would replace the system that has been dominated for so long by The World's Only Superpower. The South African daily newspaper Business Day reported that, at the BRIC summit, Russian President "Dmitry Medvedev flew a kite suggesting the time had come for the bigger players to consider alternatives to the dollar's hegemony." "Let there be no doubt," added Business Day reporter Neil Emerick, "the US has been served notice. The glory days of the dollar are over." And he pointed out that Medvedev's call was preceded by another comment, back in March, when "Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, floated the idea of an alternative to the US dollar as a reserve currency." I don't know how reliable this Neil Emerick is, but similar comments can be heard from many corners of the world (if not in the U.S. press). Another commentator, the former business editor of the British newspaper The Journal of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, said in a June 19th article entitled "The Dollar Is Waning" that while "Nothing is likely to happen soon to the dollar's status," his readers should "have no doubt, its days as number-one currency are numbered." South America No Longer the U.S. "Backyard" On a related note, Nygaard Notes has reported (#397, 398) on efforts by several South American countries to form a regional alliance—similar to the European Union—that had been called the South American Community of Nations. When formally created on May 23rd 2008 the name became the Union of South American Nations (Spanish acronym UNASUR). The BBC reported that, according to "Diplomatic sources" the alliance may end up "incorporating, under the UNASUR umbrella, the Bank of the South . . . as well as a regional Defence Council and South American Parliament." Later in 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao toured South America, a trip that "testified to Beijing's more assertive economic and diplomatic engagement in Latin America." More evidence that, even in the area that US leaders have often referred to as "our backyard," U.S. influence is declining. Those are just a couple of the newest examples of non-Americocentric alliances and multinational organizations. The ongoing development of the European Union and the recent rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (which some say "has emerged as a powerful anti-U.S. bulwark in Central Asia") are also causing concern at Imperial HQ in Washington DC. At the mid-July summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement calls were heard for the creation of "a new international order... in which nations (are not judged) by their size or military and economic capabilities." The summit was virtually blacked out in the U.S., but the calls were widely reported around the world. Even Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a New World Order different from the U.S. consensus (NY Times July 8: "Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the ‘Common Good'") It's Not Just Governments All of the things above are run more or less by official governments and their representatives. Readers may be interested in the numerous sub-national efforts underway aimed at shaping a New World Order, as well. That is, the numerous citizen-based, international, unofficial efforts led by individuals and "non-governmental organizations." Here are just a couple of efforts: 1. The group "A New Way Forward" started earlier this year by adopting a platform of "structural reform of the financial industry." Just reading their website will give you a lot to think about, and they have an action page, too. Check out their "Guide to Organizing Events." 2. The World Social Forum phenomenon began in 2001 in Brazil, and these comings-together of activists and intellectuals from around the planet have occurred every year since. Here's the story, from their website: "The World Social Forum is an open meeting place where social movements, networks, NGOs and other civil society organizations opposed to neo-liberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, for formulate proposals, share their experiences freely and network for effective action." Official website is here. It looks like a New World Order is coming into being. Not the one that George Bush The Elder used to talk about, but a new order without the U.S. at the top. It makes me think of a press release from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that came out on June 19 2009, headlined, "1.02 Billion People Hungry." Said FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf, "The present situation of world food insecurity cannot leave us indifferent." Yet the story made not a single front page in The World's Only Superpower. This is the indifference of the powerful to the plight of the powerless. That's a hallmark of the Old World Order, and one reason why the world is turning away from it even as I type these words. What will it be like for USAmericans to live in a world not dominated by U.S. power? Maybe a more immediate question is: What will the coming years be like as U.S. influence continues to decline and the world's resources begin to be allocated in new and different ways? This is the stuff that wars are made of, so I'm not thinking that it will be pleasant. But, while the decline of the American Empire will undoubtedly be painful for many—likely including, to an unusual extent, folks in this country—the New World Order that arises to replace the Washington Consensus has at least a decent chance of making the world a better place for the majority of the world's people. There are more than a billion of us right now, after all, who are literally dying for change. |
