A Commonplace Book

Private Health Insurance and Private Fire Brigades: Two Dinosaurs

Tina Dupuy of Huffington Post has an article making an analogy between private health insurance and the private, for-profit fire companies of yore. I made a similar argument in The Activist a couple of months ago:

Once upon a time, before government-run fire departments, private fire brigades would put out fires in those buildings covered by fire insurance companies. This policy of selective, for-profit firefighting was inefficient, inegalitarian and unsafe for dense urban communities, nevertheless it was profitable for the fire companies of the 19th century, whose owners were probably quite happy with the system as it was.

The analogies to health care are obvious; the for-profit health insurance model is inefficient, prohibitively costly for those most at risk, and epidemiologically unsafe for the public at large. Some people make big money in this unhappy arrangement. Those people, the major insurance companies and their lobbies, are not potential allies because their interests are antithetical to meaningful reform. They cannot be “brought to the table” because any real solution to the health care problem would necessarily involve their demise, like the for-profit private fire companies of yesteryear.

Is David Horowitz Recovering from His Long Madness?

Probably not.  Here he helpfully corrects wingnuts who equate Obama with Hitler when, actually, Obama is the new Neville Chamberlain. (Who hasn’t been accused of being Chamberlain these days?  Nous sommes tous Chamberlain!)

Still, there are some signs that Horowitz may climb down from his lunacy to become a mere run-of-the-mill asshole.  After watching Obama’s Cairo speech, I  raced to the Frontpage website for what I had hoped would be some top-shelf, sputtering apoplexy (Frontpage is basically what you’d get if a Maoist newsletter adopted the politics of Fox News).

Instead I found a Horowitz piece titled  “An American Leader Stands Up for His Country.” David the Lionheart, Foe of the Saracens, loved the speech and interpreted it, correctly I think,  as a beautifully argued case for the legitimacy and goodness of American power and supremacy.

Horowitz:

Conservatives will make a great mistake if they fail to see this speech for what it was, and treat it as another round in the partisan food fight. It was not an appeasement our enemies. It was a forthright statement by an American leader in a Muslim capital explaining why America is in fact the global leader in those battles that matter most to people everywhere: freedom, equality, and peace.

Also worth reading is Horowitz’s moving tribute to his late daughter Sarah, who seems to have been a very remarkable person.

How are co-ops surviving the recession?

The Chartist investigates:

‘…Just under half of the ‘respondents’ were feeling the pinch, much the same as businesses as a whole. But the interesting difference was their (co-op businesses) responses - no worker co-ops were looking to make redundancies at that time. Those that had to make difficult decisions opted for pay freezes and/or pay cuts…. (in one case up to 30%). As the majority of workers are company members the decisions on pay are usually made collectively. This gives worker co-operatives the ability to make difficult decisions quickly and with employee buy-in. The priority of the business is on keeping all of its employees employed and not about the enrichment of a select few. This increases the chance that businesses survive and are able to quickly bounce back once the economic situation has improved.’

Memo to the Would-Be John Galts

Dear moguls, magnates, captains of industry and masters of the universe,

Lately, we’ve noticed some media chatter over the notion that you might “go Galt” in response to the recent leftward political drift and the increasingly populist demands of the disgruntled public. Going Galt entails following the example of John Galt, the romantic, individualist hero/businessman of Ayn Rand’s best-seller, Atlas Shrugged. In the novel, Galt decides to withdraw from the world in order to deny an ungrateful society the fruits of his creative genius. We think it’s a great idea.

The truth is, we never deserved you. Please go. We never deserved your visionary leadership in the manufacturing, transportation and energy sectors, your inventive ability to devise new, arcane financial instruments, your wonderful political lobbies and their committed advocacy for sound policies in the realms of health care, education and foreign policy. We never deserved any of it.

We tried, half-heartedly, to show our appreciation by rewarding you with massive tax cuts, subsidies for your industries, grants for your research departments, and multi-billion dollar no-bid government contracts. But apart from those meager contributions, it was really your entrepreneurial spirit that earned you your first, second and third yachts, your helicopter and your diamond toilet bowl.

So teach us our lesson and leave. Let our economy devolve into a primitive bartering system where ten chickens will be worth one goat and two goats will be worth one iPod . Meanwhile, you can eat, drink and make merry in your secret Xanadu.

Please, follow the John Galt model as faithfully as possible and vanish without a trace. Leave your properties, art collections and, especially, your liquor cabinets intact. We, the hoi polloi, will now be burdened with the responsibility of managing your holdings and disposing of your estates as best we can.

We only ask that you pack your bags and spirit yourselves to your top-secret pleasure dome before we take the trouble of raising the scaffold, unpacking the guillotine and sharpening the blade. It’s such a pain.

Sincerely,

The Rabble

P.S.: Please take any and all copies of Ayn Rand’s fabulous novels with you. We don’t deserve them either.

Whither Progressive Zionism?

Zionism has long been an important current in the Jewish American left, a tradition that has made critical contributions civil rights and labor movements, not to mention many other important struggles. Many fine activists and organizers developed their ideals through their participation in left-Zionist camps and youth organizations and some prominent non-Jewish activists, such as Bayard Rustin, were also deeply inspired and influenced by the ideals of labor-Zionism. 

This history of Jewish leadership and participation in progressive movements largely explains why the Israel-Palestine conflict can be such an uncomfortable subject for American leftists and liberals. The Middle East has often been a painful wedge between progressives with strong Zionist convictions and the greater left. Differences over this issue have spoiled promising political alliances and have even strained personal relationships between friends. 

This rift is partially addressed by the work of people in liberal-to-left Zionist organizations like Meretz USA, the Union of Progressive Zionists, Americans for Peace Now and the new “pro-peace, pro-Israel” lobbying group, J-Street. I believe that the practical goal of these organizations, i.e., a stable two-state solution based roughly on the 1967 borders is the correct one. Jerusalem as a shared bi-national capital and reparations for displaced Arabs are two points where the left can and should “push the envelope.” The bi-national or “one state” solution is, in my opinion, a fantasy that does not realistically assess the current psychology of Israel’s Jewish majority. 

However, while I recognize the role the aforementioned groups play in broadening the debate on the Middle East, I ultimately consider their political principles to be unacceptable. Whatever the beautiful ideals of the early Jewish nationalist project, a movement forged in the experience of persecution and genocide, that history cannot make up for the chauvinism and militarism that are the defining features of Zionism as experienced by the occupied Palestinians. Nor, for the most part, do any of these organizations recognize the right of an occupied people to actively resist the impositions of their violent occupiers. 

It is important to understand and respect the fact that nationalist politics usually emerge from a real history of grief and oppression. Anti-racist and anti-colonial struggles, for example, have often rallied to a flag of one kind or another. Unfortunately, the emancipatory potential of a nationalist movement is usually exhausted by the conquest of power — when the rebel’s victorious nationalism becomes the national chauvinism of the new regime. This explains why hawkish defenders of Israel’s policies must always portray Israel as a weak, small David facing an enormous, Arab Goliath. Nevermind the obvious asymmetries in military hardware, body counts, etc. The fragility of Israel must always be emphasized, otherwise the whole moral edifice of Israeli militarism would fall apart. 

I believe that the Jewish state, as it is presently configured, does face a serious threat, but this threat is demographic rather than military. The ultimate challenge to Jewish nationalism will be the changing composition of Israeli society. As historian Benny Morris noted in a recent New York Times op-ed: 

If present trends persist, Arabs could constitute the majority of Israel’s citizens by 2040 or 2050. Already, within five to 10 years, Palestinians (Israeli Arabs coupled with those who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip) will form the majority population of Palestine (the land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean). 

Statement U.K. activists and academics on Gaza: Israel must lose

The massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war that Israel has been waging against the people of Palestine for more than 60 years. The goal of this war has never changed: to use overwhelming military power to eradicate the Palestinians as a political force, one capable of resisting Israel’s ongoing appropriation of their land and resources. Israel’s war against the Palestinians has turned Gaza and the West Bank into a pair of gigantic political prisons. There is nothing symmetrical about this war in terms of principles, tactics or consequences. Israel is responsible for launching and intensifying it, and for ending the most recent lull in hostilities.

Israel must lose. It is not enough to call for another ceasefire, or more humanitarian assistance. It is not enough to urge the renewal of dialogue and to acknowledge the concerns and suffering of both sides. If we believe in the principle of democratic self-determination, if we affirm the right to resist military aggression and colonial occupation, then we are obliged to take sides… against Israel, and with the people of Gaza and the West Bank.

We must do what we can to stop Israel from winning its war. Israel must accept that its security depends on justice and peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, and not upon the criminal use of force.

We believe Israel should immediately and unconditionally end its assault on Gaza, end the occupation of the West Bank, and abandon all claims to possess or control territory beyond its 1967 borders. We call on the British government and the British people to take all feasible steps to oblige Israel to comply with these demands, starting with a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

See full list of signatories HERE at the Guardian website.

The “Arab Rejectionism” Dodge

Defenders of Israel’s policies often short-circuit any meaningful dialogue on the Arab-Israeli conflict by reducing the problem to the Arabs and their alleged “rejectionism,” i.e. their refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist.

This argument conveniently removes Israel’s actions from the realm of moral consideration because it implies that changes in Israeli policy will ultimately have no impact one way or another on the ongoing conflict. It is quite difficult for a moral, thinking person to justify Israel’s treatment of the subjugated Palestinians. But the Arab rejectionism dodge allows AIPAC liberals to avoid confronting those uncomfortable questions — “they will hate us no matter what we do!”

The rejectionism dodge is not credible for three reasons:

1) In practice, Israel itself maintains a rejectionist attitude toward a viable Palestinian state. Under both right-wing and center-left governments, the settlements have multiplied and expanded and the attending network of settler roads and IDF security have left the West Bank riddled with Jewish enclaves and checkpoints. These “facts on the ground” make a territorially contiguous, socially functioning Palestine impossible.

2) Cries about Israel’s right exist distract from the sturdy reality of its ongoing existence. Despite the noisy hysteria of the Commentary crowd, Israel faces no immediate existential threat because, quite simply, Israel is a Washington-backed nuclear power with one of the most sophisticated armed forces in the world and its enemies are militarily pathetic in comparison. Israel ain’t going nowhere.

3) Even if the false premise of the rejectionism dodge were true, that the Palestinians and/or their leaders would reject a peace “no matter what,” this would not excuse immoral Israeli behavior. The world demands that Israel dismantle the settlements, not because it will be rewarded by Palestinian good will, but because it’s simply the right thing to do.

The Republic Windows plant is located in a bleak part of Chicago’s North Side known as Goose Island, a mile-long “island” formed by a brief divergence in a branch the Chicago River. The press has been referring to Goose Island as “a neighborhood” but I would describe it as a collection of warehouses and dark satanic mills. As far as I know, it has no residential zoning. The Island is just west of the notorious Cabrini-Green development, much of which has been razed and partially reconstructed in a controversial and problematic “mixed income housing” scheme.

At the moment, Goose Island’s Hickory Street is packed with news crews and their vans, lighting equipment, etc. The occupation of the Republic Windows plant has become a big story in Chicago and has received national and international attention since Barack Obama extended his moral support to the workers.

At issue are the millions of dollars Republic Windows owes its former employees. A meeting on Monday between UE, Republic Windows and Bank of America, (Republic’s creditor and a key target of the workers’ actions) failed to resolve the conflict and so the facility remains occupied.

The embattled (and soon-to-be-indicted) Governer of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich,* is eager to improve his relations with a public that despises him and has ordered the state government to cease all business with Bank of America. Several Chicago aldermen are proposing to institute a similar policy in the city government until BoA works out a loan agreement with Republic so that workers can receive their unpaid wages and legally mandated severance pay.

Although Bank of America may not be technically responsible for Republic Window’s obligations to its employees, the workers and their supporters quite reasonably argue that Bank of America took on special social responsibilities when it accepted $25 billion in the recent financial bailout. This seems especially true since the bailout was sold to a skeptical Congress on the premise that it would help banks extend lines of credit to struggling businesses.

When I came upon the scene, the atmosphere was pretty up-beat and even festive.  Workers were hooked-up with ear pieces and were giving very cool and professional TV interviews. Many of the workers were Latino and I noticed that the Spanish language press was present in force.

The entrance to the plant, through which workers were moving in and out quite freely, was flanked by two giant inflatable rats, a tactic I have always appreciated. One of the rodents seemed to have been adorned with a mustache made of pantyhose. A large crew of tough-looking white guys from Operating Engineers Local 150 were showing their solidarity best they knew how, with a giant American flag and bright yellow “Local 150 Rat Patrol” cars parked around the plant. They were gathered around a fire in an oil drum and were passing around boxes of doughnuts.

I think it is very significant, and a sign of our times, that the local political establishment has gone out of its way to support the Republic Windows workers. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez, who has mayoral ambitions and has often styled himself as a left-winger, has appointed himself chief advocate of the workers and their cause and has been present in some of the negotiations with Republic and BoA.  I saw absolutely no police officers any where near the building, although I assume they were present somewhere.

As to what the greater significance of this occupation might be. I think should keep in mind that UE is a fairly progressive outfit with a long history of radicalism. I don’t think it’s representative of the American labor movement as a whole. On the other hand, the fact that the action is being supported by the press and populist politicians might embolden workers elsewhere.