Hightower Lowdown

When I lived in Washington, DC, in the 1970s, I got a call from a friend of mine who worked for the Congressional Research Service--a legislative agency that digs up facts, prepares briefing papers, and otherwise does research on any topic requested by members of Congress.

My friend could barely speak, because he was hooting, howling, and guffawing over a research question he'd just received. It was from the office of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, the aloof and patrician Texas Democrat who was known on Capitol Hill primarily as a faithful emissary for Wall Street interests. At the time, Bentsen was contemplating a run for the presidency, and apparently he was searching for a suitable political identity. "What is a populist?" read the research query. "The senator thinks he might be one."

Uh...no sir, you are not.

Bentsen was closer to being "The Man in the Moon" than he was to being a populist. Yet, he was hardly alone in trying to cloak himself as "The People's Champion" while remaining faithful to the plutocratic powers. These days, there's a whole flock of politicos and pundits doing this--from Sarah Palin to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich to Glenn Beck.

They are abetted by a media establishment that carelessly (and lazily) misapplies the populist label to anyone who claims to be a maverick and tends to bark a lot. Although the targets they're usually barking at are poor people, teachers, minorities, unions, liberals, protestors, environmentalists, gays, immigrants, or other demonized groups that generally reside far outside the center of the power structure--the barkers are indiscriminately tagged as populist voices.

First of all, populism is not a style, nor is it a synonym for "popular outrage." It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed elites. [ read more ]

Last October, Home Depot cofounder Bernie Marcus blew a gasket, spewing outrage in all directions. "This is the demise of civilization," he exploded. "This is how a civilization disappears. I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it!"

Bernie's outburst came during an hour-long conference call with various other corporate executives and their political operatives. The purpose was to collect industry funds for a campaign to kill a piece of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Yes, the spark that ignited Bernie's fury, the hellish horror that he insisted would produce America's Armageddon, was a simple labor bill, and he was demanding that the corporate powers rally to save civilization as they know it.

"As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]...I would sue the son of a bitch," he foamed. "If a retailer has not gotten involved in this...he should be shot. They should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."

He didn't specify whether such traitorous executives should be shot first, then thrown out of their jobs, or vice-versa-- but you get the point: Corporate America is working up a feverish panic over the very notion of linking the term "employees" with the concept of free choice.

"It is a political nightmare and a public policy disaster," shrieked a PR flack for a corporate front group opposing this legislation. He even claims that top executives "are ready to riot in the street about it." Now that's exciting! I, for one, would pay to watch a horde of red-faced, Gucci-clad, CEOs rioting, wouldn't you? [ read more ]

Sorry to interrupt the Obama celebration even before the man gets settled into the Oval Office, but--what the hell is he thinking!?!

About Afghanistan, I mean. Why begin the most exciting, most important administration in decades with yet another misguided military mission that promises to be a sinkhole for our troops, our treasury, our country's good name, and the world's hopes for this historic presidency? Yet, the Obama camp indicates that it is revving up for a troop surge in Afghanistan, claiming that this chaotic country is the central front in the global war against Islamic terrorists.

Some of the new president's top security advisors insist that this is "a war of necessity," the "good war" that George W abruptly abandoned in 2003 when he diverted our military into his misadventure in Iraq. Here's the logic: As Obama kept pointing out in the presidential campaign, Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks on America, but Afghanistan did, at least in a supportive role. While neither Osama bin Laden nor his jihadist plotters were Afghans (nearly all were Saudis), they were sequestered in safe-haven hideouts in Afghan mountains. These terrorist forces posed the gravest threat to our national security back then, say Obama's hawkish advisors, and they still do today, so let's go get 'em and secure the territory!

But, wait--are we going to let Obama hawks rush us into what New York Times columnist Bob Herbert bluntly calls "a fool's errand?" It most certainly would be a horrific war...and for what? What, exactly, is our national interest, our objective, our plan, our "victory," our exit point? [ read more ]