The Fall of America, Inc.

Perry Fisher - Bush is certainly not a liberal. His privatization of the military (Blackwater) and the crony capitalism he has practiced, as well as the looting of the treasury via Iraq is what Mussolini called corporatism. I have never called anyone or any administration fascist until the Bush League came alone. But after veteran after veteran from WWII kept telling me... this is just how it started in Europe... I thought I'd take a look.

what we have now is proto-fascism, as John Dean called it. As Nixon's former counsel, I don't think he exactly qualifies as left wing. In fact, there are LOTS of Americans who do not identify with either party because both of them have been co-opted by corporations. General Smedley Butler knew about this long before WWII - when he was sent to fight - not to create democracy anywhere, unlike Fukuyama's disingenuous claims, but to create a slave labor region for United Fruit. Ashcroft, btw, refused to prosecute American corporations for forcing people to work at gunpoint for slave wages too.

These are the parts of American life that reactionary right wingers hate to hear because the truth gives lie to the claim that the U.S. is any less corrupt than any old European empire. How can we face our problems if we refuse to face reality? Are there that many men in this nation who feel the need to compensate for the shortcomings in their trousers by pretending America is their sainted mother?

sorry, but when I read the b.s. from the reactionaries, it just begs for snark.

nowforthetruth- maybe reporters say economy is Obama's strength because McCain admitted he was dumber than a box of bricks about economic issues. Since Palin is nothing more than a cheerleader for the apocalypse, please do not embarrass yourselves by trying to argue she has the intelligence to deal with the current economic mess. At least Obama is educated and has a proven ability to understand a variety of situations and hear a variety of povs and not have to do a knee-jerk sound bite. why, he's almost a maverick!

The republicans reactionaries here need a reality check. Reagan raised taxes in his second term.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0301.green.html

"Lou Cannon, the Washington Post reporter who covered Reagan's political career for 25 years, put it in his masterful biography, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, "For all the fervor they created, the first-term Reagan budgets were mild manifestos devoid of revolutionary purpose. They did not seek to 'rebuild the foundation of our society' (the task Reagan set for himself and Congress in a nationally televised speech of February 5, 1981) or even to accomplish the 'sharp reduction in the spending growth trend' called for in [his] Economic Recovery Plan." By Reagan's second term, the idea of seriously diminishing the budget was, to quote Stockman, "an institutionalized " - in other words, Peggy Noonan, and Fukuyama, by omission, are liars.

This article seems to me to be an attempt to deflect responsibility rather than place it where it belongs - with the reactionary right. I'm not selling what Fukuyama is buying. I didn't buy his b.s. at the "end of history" either. In fact, what has been thoroughly discredited is Gingrich and the southern republican reacationary base of the republican party. It's long past due.

Reagan raised payroll taxes in 1982, (after republicans lost 26 congressional seats due to "reaganomics," raised gas taxes in 1983, raised taxes by stopping business loopholes in 1984. In 1986 Reagan fought and got the largest tax increase on corporations in the history of this nation. At the same time, he decreased taxes for the lower classes - something movement conservatives hated - but you all who deify him do so because of his PROGRESSIVE tax structure - a "democratic" view of taxation, not republican.

Perry Fisher you make some good points but we have left the age of reason and have entered the age of fantasy.

Hah, Hah! Here comes Ronald Reagan the great: I am from government, I am here to help. Oops.

Comment: interesting essay. There are a couple of points for discussion.

Reagan, as George Will pointed out, decried government as the problem, rather than the solution. But under Reagan, government reach and spending grew as it did before and since. A more thorough conservative would probably have tried to curtail that growth.

Deregulation is taking quite a beating these days, and with justification here and there. But some of the relaxation of the rules might have been in response to the overwhelming burden of extreme regulation that has taken root across the spectrum. For instance, we can drill, but it'll take ten years to get oil because of the decade of red tape hurdles placed between now and then, even though technology improvements since the rules were put in place render some of the regulations counter productive.

And consider that some of the rules loosening might have been in response to the way the government mandated the lending of money to people who did not qualify for loans under established standards. Reducing standards in, say, admissions policies at universities might bear poor fruit, but it takes a generation and doesn't cost innocent people their retirement money. But mandating the reduced standards for money lending took affirmative action into the realm of accounting, where results are quantified.

I am not condemning the good intentions of politicians who wanted to expand the pool of American Dream participants, but opening the door to lower standards is undeniably at the base of our condition today. Yes, there was greed and scamming, human nature has always been in the mix.

Yes, G.Bush pushed prescription drugs onto the table when we were clearly overburdening medicare and social security already. He followed that up with No Child Left Behind, which left history, civics and science largely untaught, along with foreign languages, art and music. But it has cost billions. And yes, he has run a guns and butter economy, which included billions for homeland security, an unknown commodity before 9/11, as well as pouring treasure into Iraq, and whether you believe in it or not, it has been gag-inducing expensive.

So when people(including himself) call G. Bush a conservative, some of us wonder.

And yet the presidential candidates aren't waving red flags saying they have to reconsider their proposals in light of the calamity. They aren't saying maybe we'll have to freeze government hiring and spending and maybe consider withdrawing our military from selected areas around the globe.

They're saying we need a stimulus package. On top of the 150 billion of sweetener/ear marks on the bailout.

Whoever said perception is reality should have stayed home that day.

The President and the Cyclops...

The depiction of former President Reagan as a Cyclops is an interesting play on the illustrated past of mythology.

In mythology, when Polyphemus, the Cyclops, cries for help from others of the Cyclops race, they turn away from aiding him when they hear that "Nobody" is the cause of his woes.

Fortunately, Americans know who is responsible for their current woes, the light regulation and pared-back government of rampant Free-Market ideals espoused by the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party does not allow America to look to the past to understand the problems it faces in the future, then America will never learn the lesson of the Cyclops.

When you can't fight someone stating the facts call them a ignorant and racist then people can see how smart you are.

Lots of ignorant comments here, but John Marshall's and Nowforthetruth's replies take the cake. Ah, the voice of the racist.

Excuse me, but only two paragraphs into Mr. F.'s piece, he is describing Reagan as someone who reversed a century long increase in the size of government? As I perhaps erroneousy recall, government under the Reagan presidency actually increased in size, and at unprecedented speed, regardless of a "certain vision of capitalism."

Come on dude if you are going to parody a raving Democrat you have to be less transparent.

Excue me, but I'm only two paragraphs into this piece, and Mr. F is saying that Reagan reversed a trend toward ever larger government. As I recall, government size and government spending increased briskly during this period, with a president who spoke like a smaller government advocate, but when it came right down to it, didn't really mean it.

This guy is trying to tell us that he knows whats in the best economic interest of working Americans and than starts talking about how great free trade is! Free trade is whats killing the working and middle classes in this country.
Also Enron collapsed in 2001, not 2004.

Amen Brother

Regulate,,regulate more, super regulate, restrict, tax, fee, red tape, and regulate some more is the thing Democrats do like a drunk lunges for a bottle!
A discrimination campaign against achievers,Christian believers, gun owners, the military experts and police are the marching campaign of Americans Suck First! Americans Suck Now!
The Americans Suck First campaign is a pacifying lozenge America's liberals need to vote against their better interest and the country's better interest.
American is a great country! Americans are a great people! And there's absolutly no need to qualify this fact or equivicate as liberals feel they must!So creeps like Bill Ayers don't feel insulted who bitterly clingred to bombs and the goal to bring all the violence in the world to the American streets!
No OBAMA or Biden.

Well, Frances, dude,
It is interesting to learn that you are no less bigoted than Obama. Like him, you say:
When they vote Republican, it's because cultural issues like religion, patriotism, family values and gun ownership trump economic ones.

"This group of voters will decide November's election, not least because of their concentration in a handful of swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Will they tilt toward the more distant, Harvard-educated Obama, who more accurately reflects their economic interests? Or will they stick with people they can better identify with, like McCain and Sarah Palin?"
It is rare for a commentator to embrace a slur used by a candidate. But there you are, saying that those folk in Pennsylvania cling to God and guns instead of voting their economic interests. Pathetic. How could you call yourself an analyst or commentator when you repeat slurs?
By the way, you did mention the main reason for the Wall Street meltdown. That reason is Fannie and Freddie. Do you know what they are, Frances? They are a welfare progam and, like all such, are rife with corruption and theft. If Obama becomes president, they will become the model for the US government. Obama will engage in a massive transfer of wealth to people who do not have a clue how to handle money. The result will be that some brilliant and unscrupulous wealthy people will take the welfare money from the recipients who will end up no better off. Frances, you are part of the problem. You do not speak with your voice but with the prejudices of all those coastal graduate schools.

and the primary reason for our current financial crisis. These government sponsored enterprises bought up risky sub-prime mortgages from the secondary market, pooled them, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. These investors had faith in the security of these investments, believing they were backed by the federal government. When these mortgages went unpaid the market

The easing of the lending practices spurred on by the Democrats changed the rules of the game and Fannie and Freddie were players in this game. There is enough blame to spread around but you will never hear a Democrat step up and take any blame which makes me fear that we are only destined to repeat the same mistakes. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are the problem and that for the good of the country we should eliminate both parties.

Fannie and Freddie only represent 20% of the financial tsunami that hit wall street. Where does the other 80% come from? Answer that then tell me the Dems are to blame....you can't

What is the meaning of the word Politics?

Politics comes from the root words 'Poly' meaning many and 'Ticks' which are blood sucking parasites