by Diane Gee, Editor, The Wild Wild Left

---

Economics is not a thing.  It’s a contrived process, miles of convoluted intestinal tracts, twisting sinews, spasming to pass along fetid human flotsam and degraded resources with every value leached out along the way leaving nothing in its wake but the product it defecates.  We all know how lovely that is.

Yeah, I love economics.  All theory is based on previous theory, including the Leftist “greats” who I am finally slogging my way through.  Marx, Lenin, whoever.  Not to be dismissive of their groundbreaking idea that the peasantry itself was actually the source of all wealth, though I gather slaves have fathomed that nuance throughout the entire reality of human interaction.  It’s a great thing to say out loud.  I said it long before I read them.  “We are money.  We are the source through which all gains flow, and there truly are no gains that are not ill-begotten gains, if you really think about it.”

They say money doesn’t buy happiness. I counter money buys unhappiness, actually misery and suffering in an exponential pyramid to those on the bottom holding it up.

What money really buys?  Is time.  Time to enjoy life rather than endure it.  It is not only labor being stolen, our inherent value, but the most precious thing we have on our short trip on this blue marble.  Our time. Time well spent is the only true happiness there is.

Sure, we want that sailboat, or sweet car, or bigger house, or flat screen.  Toys are cool, there can be no denying.  If every person in upstate New York had a boat, even a lake as big as Seneca would be wall to wall boats.  We (they) can’t have that, now can we? Picture the parking problem of 1000 ships trying to make Troy.  Some of those poor bastards would have to walk a loooooong way.  Heh.  Too many people equals insane congestion.

Think about why that is, starting with the fact concentrations of people are always in cities centered around the concept of “finding work.”  Just leave that in the back of your mind for a moment.  We will come back to it.

Let’s go back to economic theory, the voodoo myth that says everything must rely on consumption:  Supply/demand, labor/production, value/markets. Even worker-owned capitalism (socialism) is still capitalism in a sense, because the well being of the people still relies on buying and selling (economy) rather than creating a system where purchase (cum profit) is unnecessary.  There is no kinder, gentler vampirism, when the host system has limited blood.

My audience is primarily made up of people who agree with these things, many, most vehemently.  Compared to what we have now?  A society in which we ourselves own our labor and means of production is nirvana.  Check.  Got it.  Some of you are economic theorists who will speak of debt and taxes and my naivete in thinking that economic theories are all just more faith-based illusions meant to keep you trembling before the God of the Dollar.  Bear with me here.  Some faith is good.  If you are in your car, what stops utter vehicular devastation but the faith you hold, and each person in their vehicle holds?  You believe you must stay in your lane.  They believe they must stop at a stop light.  But some faiths are the antithesis of avoiding “devastation,” and the most basic of these faiths is that we must have a system based on consumption.

We are in that position now, nearing utter devastation. The end of finite resources is coming, accelerated beyond imagination by what amounts to the two new shiny tools that Leftists of old never imagined:  The mechanizing of most labor (robots don’t unionize!) and the opening of international labor pools to a degree that essentially has rendered the elites into a single extraction-entity.  One world market, one global country, ruled by elites that have no allegiance to anyone but themselves.  Make cheap, sell high, record profits and environmental destruction without remorse.  The Class War has happened, and all wealth and resources have been redistributed to the top.  We lose.

This really sounds daunting until we remember there are some 7 to 8 billion of us on the planet.   That’s a big number.  Poor Lockheed Martin only made 2.93 billion profiting off war last year. And they only employ 132,000 people of the 7 billion on the planet, presumably not the other 6,999,868,000 people they are not trying to kill.  It’s madness. More so when you think about the mere 200 people (200!) who hold most of the planet’s wealth.

Socialism, communism could cure that to a degree.  Both are inherently democratic concepts and on a global scale could help to eradicate these gross inequalities that by random luck of birth leave one baby to live in gross luxury and the next to starve to death by the age of two. Socialist principle redistribute wealth back to those from whose labor it actually comes.  Awesome concept.  But?

What those systems cannot do, with their plodding planning and anarchistic “local control” is overcome the FACT that resources are finite.  Or that in any trade, benefit is gained by demanding more value than something is worth in order to profit.  Local control is a wonderful thing when it is a more organic notion, living sustainably within and as a part of an ecosystem.  Local control over factories based on mass production just adds to the overarching problem.  You see, “the economy” in and of itself is based on the very Western concept of “work” and “productivity” as being a virtue.  It does not address diminishing resources, melting ice caps, peak oil, vanishing rainforests or carbon in our atmosphere.

Secondly?  Any system of buying and selling has self-interest at its core.  Local control under that system would still produce those who wanted to benefit from more “money” and compete with other localities, as well as among themselves at some point… even under the most stringent of safeguards.  Markets would not be markets without competition, or profit, even shared profit. The point of the work itself is to do better for yourself, even your “collective selves.” It’s a snake eating its tail.

That core concept, that only in labor and productivity does man have value is flawed.

That core concept, of “producing” and “consuming” even in the fairest of fashions is flawed.

You probably think this is a universal concept.  It is not.  It is the result of humans moving northward to ever more hostile environments that created the need to create caches of excess to survive the cold months between growing seasons.  It became a self-fulfilling, positively-reinforced concept of the north and west. Slackers died.  Hard workers lived and gained more.   It became part of the mindset of Western imperialism, so ingrained as a “virtue” as it were, that when they conquered other lands they were aghast at sustainable societies, and deemed them lazy, heathen, tribal vermin.  As is the case now, for the most part today’s society cannot begin to fathom a world without work for works sakes, cannot dream of the idea of a non-monetary system and scream, “How would we get STUFF without work and income?”  We are less racist about it now, but we are still equally judgmental.

Picture the cultural clash when during WWII, soldiers from Europe and America landed in, and created stations in Polynesia.  At first they saw it as Paradise.  Beautiful women willing to be joyous sexual partners.  What seemed endless free time for the villagers.  Communal sharing.  That quickly turned into disgust, as chronicled by James Michener in “Tales of the South Pacific” and Hemingway’s love of the people of Cuba.  (although he loved the western, exploitative bars too)

You see, in places of plenty, the very concept of self and greed were the foreign concept.  No one “owned” anything, right up to and including the children.  Competition was unimaginable.  Work was done only when necessary, by whomever was handy to do it.

The West worked hard to crush those ideals, shamed the women into hating their bodies, taught the men they had to stake out territory and defend it, and most of all?  Tricked them into working as they taught them the idea of “coveting” some trinket or another.

Chile, before the Chicago Boys Straussian indoctrination had a wonderful and growing quality of life.  Well fed, healthy coastal villages became slums as the US businessmen sent in factories.  The workers could no longer afford what they themselves once grew.  From an article written at that time:

The inhuman conditions under which a high percentage of the Chilean population lives is reflected most dramatically by substantial increases in malnutrition, infant mortality and the appearance of thousands of beggars on the streets of Chilean cities. It forms a picture of hunger and deprivation never seen before in Chile. Families receiving the minimum wage cannot purchase more than 1,000 calories and 15 grams of protein per person per day. That is less than half the minimum satisfactory level of consumption established by the World Health Organization. It is, in short, slow starvation. Infant mortality, reduced significantly during the Allende years, jumped a dramatic 18% during the first year of the military government, according to figures provided by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America.

Neoliberalism crushed them, true. They were better off under Socialism, true as well. But the indigenous tribes that are self-sustaining are still the bane of both systems; and in most cases both systems seek to crush that way of life and bring them into the labor-force fold.  Why?

It’s not just profit, private or collective that drives it.  It is a combination of a delusional “must produce” mindset with an ecological exploitation diktat and the idea that free living people must be brought into the “Westernized’ fold.

The single most frightening thought of all is the idea that work is no longer truly necessary.  It is as foreign to us as the idea of work for work’s sake was to the Polynesians.

I understand fully well we do not live in small numbers in some tropical paradise where the trees drip with fruit and the fish are there for the taking.  I understand as well the demographic nightmare we have in moving food to concentrations of people in concrete jungles that will not support any life.

What we do have is technology, and the ability to make most of that process mechanized and not labor intensive.

I read Lenin’s “An order of civilized co-operators in which the means of production are socially owned,” and see the justice in it.  I also see the gaping flaw.  Lenin’s “What is to Be Done” refers solely to Industrialized Nations, and sought to industrialize the World – hence adding legions of “workers”  to his cause.  He sees agricultural, sustainable societies as lesser beings that had to be brought into the system of supply and demand, labor and “economics.”

We have the capacity for limitless, green power, so much so, that Germany’s surplus threatens its ancient grid, while other nations are “paying” insane amounts for the expense and increasing rarity of fossil fuels.  We could entirely eliminate all the labor and “exchange” in the providing of power with ease.

Without monetary markets and trade and the horrific Monsanto crushing of the bio-diverse DNA codes of natural foods, food itself could be sustainable. Harkening back to my demographic point – without the need for work, people would again disperse to more rural settings and garden themselves. How many of you would live where you live if you did not have to live there to serve your job?  We would not need to fill every lake with boats, nor every ski slope with skiers.  Our interests are as varied as we are.  Without the concept of “weekend” or vacation, time sharing could be as easy as pie.

If the God of all Economic theory is Production/WORK?  The God of Production/WORK is Inherent Obsolescence.

In a soundbite?  “It has to break, so you have to buy more, so people can have WORK!”

Picture a world where you are given a vehicle at the appropriate age, if need be, an environmentally sound vehicle that will last FOREVER.  There would be no need for car payments on a vehicle built so well that it never breaks down, rusts or needs replacement.  Think even further to the point where mass transit negates the need for individually owned transport in the first place.

We have the technology.  Who will make them?  Or the TV’s and Computers on which we rely so heavily?  Perhaps, as part of our expanded educational system, 6 months must be given in some sort of “labor” in whatever field that a student feels a “calling” to.  Remember callings?  Rather than grow up to be in a cubicle, where people were called to a profession?  Would teachers teach without the idea of having more than their non-teaching neighbors?  Sure they would… because what has long been missing from our equation is real value.  Gratitude, honor, esteem of our neighbors.  Did the people of Polynesia have exceptional fishermen, weavers, builders and teachers?  They did, not because there was any currency per se; because the villagers loved and honored them for their contribution.

“Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” ~ Ancient Indian Proverb

We, as a whole, have shit in our own nests, our own water, and one may say we deserve to die of thirst.  Water, too is finite.  There is no sane society that would despoil forever the water tables sustaining life on Earth fracking for gas that is absolutely UNNEEDED to provide power.  Even our excrement could be composted into useful matter with our levels of science and technology without using this most precious of resources to “wash” it away.

Basic levels of housing, heat, and food could be met on a sustainable level with very little human “labor” involved.  Things like clothing, which do wear could be produced by robotic means, but would require we lose the vanity/consumption addiction to have ever new garments with which to decorate ourselves.  Medicine could again be a calling, and cures given to all mankind.  Without the profit motive?  Endless treatment of symptoms would lose out to people looking for true cures.

So, what would we do with all our time?  Love our children.  Help one another.  Learn, create art, enjoy and protect nature.  Party naked! Heh.  Ok, I may go too far there.

If the drudgery was not our main reason for living, who knows what we could do with our brilliance and creativity?  Certainly our energies could be better spent than to think of new ways to compete, and make war on one another.  Instead of making sure all who need it get insulin?  We could spend that energy on splicing some DNA into a stem cell that would heal your pancreas.

We could reverse the Climate Change, protect the diversity of our eco-systems and all the living things within it.  We could live as part of the world, again, rather than its Consumers.  Consume:  To eat.  We are predating and killing our life support system, driven by some madness that says we have to “work, make, use, discard, then work more to use more, only to discard again,” in some demented game that is propagating the false idea that we must serve this thing called an “Economy” to survive as a species.

We know where the sun goes at night.  We no longer have to work to the bone to survive a winter.  And no amount of “work” in the world will prepare us for the long winter that global warming could create, anyway!.

Work is not the point of our existence.  It’s barely necessary at this point.  Even in a Socialist System, Capitalism is inherent too.  It is still slavery to serve pointless production that kills our planet, and pointless work to consume what must by its nature produce more consumption.

The rich are rich in time.  Time is the only thing that matters.  We are giving away our time in a counter-intuitive venture that is completely unnecessary and planet-killing.

It could be a world of fairness.  It could be a world of sustainability.  It could be Paradise. It could be Global Cooperation.

It could be a world based on LEARNING, problem solving an coexisting in nature.

Let’s leave the fast track to oblivion, and start talking about the FAS track to Nirvana.  Fairness and Sustainability.

Think about it.  A factory, a cubicle, or here?

Diane Gee is a political commentator and activist residing in Michigan. She is the founding editor of The Wild Wild Left, and Links for the Wildly Left (Facebook).

___________________________________

Radical changes (14.50 / 2)
only come from radical thinking.

by: Diane Gee @ Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 18:30:35 PM UTC
On a purely technological level, we can stop predating on the planet (17.00 / 2)
By bare thermodynamics, recycling takes lots and lots of energy, since it is reversing entropy.  So, even with a conservation modality, energy production would need to go up (way, way up!), not down.  Not because of being spendthrift wastrels, because of pure physics, in that case.

In any event a whole lot of effort needs to be put into recycling technologies.

I think we can do a lot better in communities without the need for so much stuff.

I hate to be such a communist with a one-blanket answer, but by living the way we live, at least in America, a huge huge amount of waste is entailed.

We live isolated in our ticky tacky apartments, get mentally ill and kill each other, pleasing Wayne LaPierre in the process.

The weirdo also known as AndyS In Colorado

By Patrice Greanville
“

So reads one of the headlines announcing that  Al-Jazeera (AJ) has acquired Current TV (for a rumored $500 million), the floundering cable network founded by Al Gore.  The news has been received with outright indignation in some quarters, and cautious celebration in others. (Gore and his partners, according to Bloomberg, are said to have walked away with an estimated $440 million in profit). The fear among conservatives (which includes much of the liberaloid establishment) is that Al-Jazeera, already well known for its consistently incisive coverage of international affairs, may actually inject some truth into the thoroughly indoctrinated and fossilised American mind, and by so doing rock the long and firmly moored boat.

The American political propaganda system (“the well baptized “Brainwash under freedom”) is easily the best in the world,  the smoothest and most effective in history, and much of the reason for its success resides in the fact that the dissemination of its highly adulterated version of reality is done seamlessly by hundreds of millions of conscious and unconscious actors on a daily basis, from the mighty engines of mass communications to the average citizen who “freely” regurgitates —at the retail level—the chief memes approved by the mainstream culture. But there’s an Achilles heel: this mutually-reinforcing edifice of lies requires robust consistency for its survival, no real competition of any sort. The grotesque self-serving lies, omissions and distortions must not be repeatedly challenged by any visible carrier of alternative visions. Al-Jazeera, more than Current TV, which quickly degenerated into an ideological instrument for the Democratic party, the television equivalent of Daily Kos (as is MSNBC), represents a potentially dangerous crack on the wall of conformity enveloping American opinion. Stubborn resistance should be expected. As media observer Gary Wasserman has said in what sounds to me like a backhanded compliment, “With its alleged positions against U.S. foreign policies and wars, Al-Jazeera is just too ‘left’ to be allowed access to our fearful public.” In a ludicrous display of fealty to the cause, the suits at  TIME-Warner, one of the giant cable distributors (and like the rest, a monopolist), already sanctimoniously kicked Current TV from its roster. Other distributors are likely to follow suit. This denies Al-Jazeera America a big chunk of the 40 to 60 million subscribers in Current TV’s ledger, posing difficult issues at the very time when this new medium will have to define itself.

Indeed, what awaits Al-Jazeera in America probably will not be pretty. Leaving aside the powerful Israeli lobby and its numerous assets and sympathizers throughout the American and Western media, people who can be relied on to spread all manner of venom about the Qatar-owned network, hinting darkly that Al-Jazeera is simply a Trojan horse to spread “anti-American” propaganda, there’s no scarcity of homegrown xenophobes likely to be shocked by Al-Jazeera’s intrusion into a jealously guarded sandbox, not to mention its way of doing journalism.

But if Al-Jazeera is not stifled in its crib, a reasonable concern, its entry into the crowded but pathetically narrow American marketplace of ideas could be a net win for US audiences. Al-Jazeera’s journalistic culture is simply superior to the American product, if for no other reason that, not being beholden to the imperial propaganda storylines that infect so much of US television, more often than not it stands to speak truth by default. While there’s no such thing as real objectivity (a grand conceit of US-style journalism), a measure of minimum professionalism, and a preoccupation with events and realities outside the perimeter of American narcissism will prove healthy and refreshing.

Huge stakes for all concerned

The industry scuttlebutt is that AJ is quite aware it faces an uphill battle in terms of ratings and a race to neutralize the flack  from competitors (see Appendix below) and multiple political enemies, although when it comes to Gulf politics you do find strange bedfellows and the cues from the top of the American power pyramid could point to accommodation. In fact I would not be too surprised if this deal was made with the tacit support of powerful factions within the US ruling elite, groups that endorse a very flexible and cynical posture toward the Sheiks, Emirs, and so on. AJ is owned by Qatar and based in Doha, the site of many international meetings of the Masters of the Universe. (The new US franchise may  operate from American soil.) Pre-empting a distribution sabotage, if AJ picks up traction it may even attempt to buy a major cable distributor, like Comcast.  After all, what’s a few billions here and there for the well-heeled petromonarchies?  Cable distributors are not subject to broadcasting license review, only territory assignments, but there money talks, too. A key player in this struggle will be the attitude of the print media, some of which may shut the door in AJ’s face (most are members of infotainment conglomerates with television and print in their bosoms), forcing it to engage in lawsuits to gain access, a conflict that could quickly evolve into a Supreme Court case, or simply take the Arab money and run.

The Arab nation, still schizophrenic in its relations with the West, has long wanted to have a media foothold in America, its chief ally and tormentor.  Some of the Gulf potentates want to counter some of the overwhelming pro-Israeli wove in the reporting fabric of US media corporations.; they also see that buying Congress is easy but risky, much better to have indirect pressure mechanisms to turn public opinion on certain matters when needed.  In the latter-day American Rome, as in the old Rome, the  core of power is global, lacking in true nationalist loyalties and instincts. From an imperial viewpoint this is only logical, nationalistic boundaries are superfluous, even if the God of nationalism must be constantly appeased to keep the subject populations in check. Meanwhile everyone is buying pieces of the rotten core thereby literally dissolving its remaining national identity.

Possible incarnations

As things stand, the doomsayers may be proven wrong. Perhaps of maximum importance in this equation is that —in large measure because of the Internet—AJ already has a small but loyal audience base among Americans and Europeans. They are also seen in Japan and most of Latin America, where their programming is in general “anti-American” in hue, often backing Iran, for example, against US intimidation. AJ is indeed building an audience in America steadily, as is RT (Russian TV), which is also seeking and securing some penetration.  All of this is possible because of the scandalous rottenness and cynicism of the American media, and much of the rest of the Western media. At least with AJ and RT you’re liable to get from 70 to 90% of the truth in most cases, unheard of by US standards. It reminds me of the Japanese car invasion in the late 60s which knocked some very belated sense into US carmakers. More sobering to the US networks, the Japanese and later other competitors of various flags, never withdrew.

The Al-Jazeera saga will make for interesting watching. Optimistically, the American propaganda monster might at last be challenged in its own lair. But how much of a challenge will be possible? Some speak—at last—of a network to offset Murdoch’s empire of filthy lies. If so, in terms of political niche AJ would have to position itself to the left of MSNBC to carve up a strong identity quickly. If it chooses the liberaloid slot occupied by MSNBC—just flogging the GOP and giving a pass to Obama and the Dems—it will lose all promise of improving the picture and also detonate a certain fight with NBC from the start.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Patrice Greanville is a media critic, publisher of the first US radical media review, Cyrano’s Journal, and editor of The Greanville Post.

 

 

APPENDIX

Competitors

Since the launch of Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera directly competes with BBC World and CNN International, as do a growing number of other international broadcasters such as France 24, NHK World, and Russia Today.

Another competitor is Al-Alam, Established in 2003 by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, it broadcasts continuously. It seeks to address the most challenging issues of the Muslim and Arab world and the Middle East.

When Euronews started broadcasting its programs in Arabic on 12 July 2008, it entered into competition with Al Jazeera. Arabic is the eighth language in which Euronews is broadcast, after English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese.

MIKE INGLES

Let us play “suppose.”

Suppose in America there was no 1st Amendment; specifically, that we had no prohibition to establishing a government religion.

And suppose the Catholics decided to run candidates in every political office. It could just as easily be protestants or Mormons or anti-baptist. I’m not against Catholics, I am one, unless I’ve been kicked out? Again. Suppose, it was not an overt action, but done quietly, pew to pew, neighbor to neighbor, comrade to comrade. And it took years to facilitate.

Suppose the Catholics had an agenda; suppose they hoped to accomplish something noble (in their minds) like putting an end to abortion. Although, they are only 1/3 of us or so, they realized that if they banned together, voted as a block, they could control things pretty nicely, thank you, and they could make up other laws, such as Fish on Friday or no drinking after dark and never wear white after Labor Day.

Suppose, they were successful. Suppose they ended up controlling both houses of congress and the presidency and, for good measure, they decided it would just make good sense to make all the generals and admirals and CIA folks, Catholic appointees.

Fish on Fridays?

Now (I know this is a stretch—but), suppose that Ireland was the strongest military force in the world. And, being a Catholic nation, they supported the Catholic political uprising in America and secretly sent in their CIA to begin protests that supported Catholic men and women with guns and money and ambitions.

Now, suppose that this really happened, not in America but in a land far far away.

Iraq, was governed by a political/religious party the “Sunni” even though they represented only about a 1/3 of their population. I’ll leave history to report the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein and the integral part that the United States (or Ireland) played in establishing the Ba’ath Party (or Catholics). I’m done supposing and now just want to wonder.

Wonder what is going to happen now that the Shia (Protestants) are in charge in Iraq? Wonder if all that suppression that was done by the Catholics Sunni, in the past will cause retribution? Wonder if the Catholics will take to the streets?

Wonder if people will be murdered and car-bombs will explode and if Ireland will send in Drones? Wonder if religion will be the cause of yet another bloody civil-war and wonder if we can afford to sit back and watch? Wonder if Allah is watching?

Fish? Anyone.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mike Ingles is a political commentator based in Ohio but with a global roving eye.

MIKE INGLES

Economists, like proctologists, tend to hold a narrow view of things. And, a viewpoint is a powerful thing. We all know that statistics are malleable, that what is an asset in one column is often a liability in another. When an economist, with a narrow viewpoint, hooks a politician, with a voracious appetite, you get broken government—you get Mike

“Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average US household below the poverty line received $168 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25 an hour. And the person who works also has to pay taxes, which drops his pay to $21 an hour. It’s no wonder that welfare is now the biggest part of the budget, more than Social Security or defense. And why would anyone want to get off welfare when working pays $9 an hour less?”

Huckabee, is no dummy; he understands the reality behind these numbers. No, Huckabee is not a dummy—he’s a demagogue. If it is true that all these poor people are doing so well, why do they chose to live in dilapidated homes and in neighborhoods where the most common reason for death is by murder. And, why send your well-fed and well-tailored children to sub-standard schools—with that kind of money, their kids should be in private schools.

You and I know that these statistics are skewed. You and I know that these poor families are not on each government program for an extended amount of time. You and I know that these statistics include children with terminal illnesses being treated in hospitals and poor people who have been injured in some terrible accident, or shot in their deluxe living quarters by an errant bullet from a weapon with 30-in-the-clip. Huckabee knows that too.

But he also knows that the guy and gal who works hard, 8-10 hours a day, and are getting nowhere for all their labors, who knows something broken but not sure what or why, who go to church each Sunday and listen but do not hear—they want to blame someone. Who better to blame, than the blameless, the indigent,the Samaritans.

The demagogue who wrote those words knows full-well that folks on welfare don’t average 30 bucks an hour, while sitting on their hams watching Dr. Phil, and drivin’ dem Cadillacs ’round town. But, it’s a great image for Fox T.V., if you want to protect the status-quo and deflect the real-world problems of poverty and stagnation of real wages and unemployment and broken capitalism. Hunckabee offers no solutions but carefully frames the debate to reach his audience with code.

I too have a proctology problem; my vision is also skewed. I have this vision of Ma and Pa drinking a beer, sittin’ in a barcalounger cheering-on the opaque image of a former Southern governor, capped teeth, spewing carefully laid out statistics to a gullible people ready to lap up any nonsense, simply because that particular demagogue also believes that automatic weapons protect people, and women should be forced to have babies that they don’t want and can’t afford, and poor people are lazy.

As long as these two visions exist equally, nothing can be done to fix what is broken. Liberals counter with their own television programming over at MSMBC, with self-righteous commentators who vilify the opposition with their own Ivy-league sly code references, and can never relate to that guy and gal in the barcalounger, because, deep inside, somewhere where they don’t want to go, they don’t like Ma and Pa very much. Deep down, they don’t think blue-collar workers should have that enormous power to vote and so set the direction of this most powerful nation. I know who they are because, often, I am one of them. And so, every once in a while, I have to write a column like this to remind myself that it takes two to demagogue an issue. That Samaritans walk on both sides of the road.

MIKE INGLES writes a regular column on national affairs.