Rotten Little Girls

Tag: McCain

Marx Gets the Last Laugh: Is Capitalism Failing?

by Kelly

The past week has been a rough one for the U.S. economy. Several major investment banks went bankrupt and some companies, such as AIG, got bailed out by the government to the tune of 85 billion dollars. (It shouldn’t have to be said that the taxpayers are paying for this). In addition, the government has nationalized major mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


Now, I’m not a Marxist, but this is sounding awfully familiar. In my economics and government classes, I’ve read excerpts of Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. One of Marx’s most basic theories is his notion that history has progressed through several stages of class struggle: from feudalism to capitalism, to the eventual failure of capitalism. He claimed that our world would end up with socialism and that this would mark the end of history (since we’d have perfected our society). Now, I’m not really so sure socialism is the answer. However, the past few days have exemplified what Marx warns in his works: capitalism is failing.

Marx believed that capitalism was inherently flawed, so much so that it would lead to its own destruction. He explained this by claiming capitalism operates through a pattern of business cycles. These business cycles are exhibited by relative prosperity for a period of time, then a decline and recession – in other words, boom and bust. Marx maintained that each business cycle would be more and more devastating, until finally culminating in one disastrous collapse. This would then leave the world (or individual countries) ready for socialism as a replacement of the failed capitalistic system. With the recent failure of major investment banks, and the warnings from some modern economists that FDIC-protected banks and other companies/institutions are going to fail next, it appears that Marx might have the last laugh.

Business Cycle

Business Cycle

We cannot afford to let our current recession turn into another depression. We must, as a country, find a way to overcome this financial crisis. And while I’m not saying we should throw in our hats and purchase Communist Manifestos for our school children, I think elements of socialism would be a beneficial addition to our economic practices. Even now we are not a perfectly capitalistic society: our markets are not free from government regulation and intervention. Adam Smith’s invisible hand has left the building, so to speak.

I argue that we should model our economy after those of Sweden, Denmark, and other European countries. These countries have a social democracy, in the sense that they democratically reform their economy so that there is more of a “welfare state,” or benefits provided by the government. Sure, citizens of these countries may pay more taxes, but they have the assurance that their taxes are being distributed more meaningfully and appropriately than Americans do. (Also, for everyone who hears “welfare state” and immediately has negative connotations, keep in mind that many of the stereotypes about welfare programs are unfounded).

So, while I run the risk of sounding like a radical leftist, I’m also just your average citizen, concerned with the uncertain state of our country’s future. I hope that if Obama is the next President, we can see some positive reforms on our economy, though I don’t expect him to single-handedly fix our economic and political institutions. I will say this: if McCain is elected, we are in for 4 to 8 years of the Republican party attempting to prevent the failure of capitalism by any means necessary – no matter how detrimental to our society. If that terrible nightmare becomes a reality, I’ll be the first to apply for a visa to Sweden.

Related links:
AIG bailout: Where does the financial crisis lead next?
U.S. Mortgage Bank Nationalization : Sign of Deepening Crisis
All Over the Board: Capitalism has failed. Period.

What are your thoughts on the burgeoning financial crisis? What should the United States do?

Photo Credits

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

by Harlequin

As the November presidential election looms closer, it’s time to pick these candidates to pieces with deeper fervor.  And with only two that remain standing, Obama and McCain, it seems that in terms of women’s issues, it’s almost a case of, well…black vs. white.  As Dollface explained, Obama addresses a myriad of women’s issues while McCain almost completely ignores them, save his section on “Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life.”  Now, of course the correlation between religion and politics has many factors besides the ever-popular abortion issue.  But the mere title of this category just reeks of religious undertones, and it is aimed almost entirely at explaining McCain’s pro-life policies (a term that my own mother ranted about as she complained that having kids was an anti-life policy for any woman).

Polls show the obvious – that people who consider religion an important part of their daily lives support McCain over Obama, (50% to 40%, according to this study).  And to me, McCain’s policies might support the organized Christian church’s stance on women’s issues, but he is flat-out wrong when he interprets what religion is really supposed to be about.

The glaring problem with organized religion that bothers me is the way in which people seem to forget what it is truly about. It’s not about making rules and forcing other people to bend to your will – spirituality is about people doing good, supporting each other and thinking in terms of acceptance rather than absolute morality.  Coincidentally, Christianity tends to punish “the second sex” as most immoral, even using the Bible to assign blame to hotheaded sexpots like Eve and Delilah.   I can not help but believe that this sexist and power-hungry stance is not the attitude on which Christianity, or any religion for that matter, was founded.

This is not to say that religion is necessarily a negative part of our world.   It provides purpose and meaning for many people, and creates a supportive community.  But so often this gets lost in the shuffle of political power plays.  By all means, worships Jesus Christ, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and the whole shebang – but if you are really going to get all Biblical about it, shouldn’t you at least hold true to Jesus’ teachings?  Using religion as an excuse to halt the advancement of women’s rights is not justifiable.  Nor is it an accurate depiction of the underlying theme of Christianity – and in fact of all religions “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Jesus preached about acceptance and equal worth for men and women long before the Bible was written.  In fact, he even had people breathing down his neck for NOT excluding women from his teachings.  His blatant refusal to subjugate women himself has been twisted and lost throughout the centuries, because above all, women should be allowed to make decisions for themselves if indeed they do have equal status in the world.

Not to mention that the Bible makes no mention of abortion.  It is probably for this reason that there have been varied stances on the procedure throughout Christianity’s existence.  St. Thomas Aquinas and even some medieval popes believed that a fetus was not a person until “quickening” – when motion of the fetus can be felt and it is said to be showing signs of life.  While this varies from woman to woman, quickening typically occurs around 5 months.  Today a similar concept viability is used to determine the legality of abortions.  Referring to the fetus’ ability to live outside of the mother’s womb, viability is the basis of most abortion laws; this is why most late-term abortions are illegal unless a health risk to the mother or child can be proven.

In the context of this type of religious subjugation, supporting McCain’s views on abortion just stems to the larger issue: that supporting religiously-motivated policies allows for the hindrance of our female rights – rights to our own bodies, our own biological needs and our own life goals.  The doctrine of Christianity has proven that the church does not have the best interest of women in mind.  Its dismissal of the female experience is a result of the gender power struggle, rather than a policy of holding fast to religious teachings.  Even as supporters of McCain, women should be lobbying for him to include women’s rights in his political agenda.

Never mind that the Constitution above all stresses the separation of church and state.  Does anyone else wonder why the inclusion of religious-based opinions in our legal system is even an issue?  I don’t think most humans are so lost that they need a higher power to guide them around the universe of ethics.  Our personal decisions should reflect the freedom of choice in a world where morality is relative, not absolute.

Photo Credit: Christian Martyr on the Cross by Von Max (1865)

McCain’s Armies of Compassion

by Kelly

The first thing you may notice about Obama’s campaign site is that he has dedicated an “issues” page to Women. In this page he highlights a range of women’s issues, from domestic violence to healthcare. Needless to say, his stance on women’s rights is rather comprehensive.

However, on McCain’s website, there is a glaring deficit. There is no mention of women’s rights as an important issue. In fact, the only mention of women is under the category of “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life” in which McCain’s pro-life (anti-choice) stance is explained.

McCain's Armies of Compassion

Armies of Compassion?


Interestingly enough, the McCain site claims that,

“The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. “

Armies of compassion? First of all, what is with the military jargon? Is that an allusion to McCain’s stint as a Navy Pilot (he ranked 894 out of 899 in his Naval Class, but never mind that…). Either way, this phrase “armies of compassion” — which in this context is referring to “faith-based, community and neighborhood organizations” such as Family Research Council — makes it seem like other respectable organizations are not compassionate. What about Planned Parenthood, one of the “pro-choice” organizations that has been underfunded and stigmatized by the Bush administration? Are they not “compassionate”?

For those who are unaware of what Planned Parenthood’s mission is, I will direct them to their website. Since many Planned Parenthood facilities are not even equipped to perform abortions, it really seems ridiculous that this organization is persecuted by the pro-life neo-cons. PP provides a much-needed service to those who cannot afford expensive birth control, or who need more information and support. Regardless of whether you support premarital sex or not, it is important to have a place where our teenaged daughters and sons (and anyone else, for that matter) can go to test for STDs, AIDs, and learn crucial methods of contraception. I would argue that PP is more “compassionate” than its “faith-based” pro-life counterparts.*

*I am aware that the McCain campaign is using “armies of compassion” as a euphemism for “pro-life tendencies”. I just think it’s a load of crap.

McCain is not the only one to refer to these organizations as “armies of compassion”. In June 2008, George Bush used the phrase as well at the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference. Now, I’m sure there are many other ways in which Bush and McCain are similar, but this seems to be a rather blatant way in which McCain is perpetuating the Bush administration’s doctrine – even down to the jargon!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 132 other followers