Obama’s jobs plan: Republicans are calling it class warfare, Obama is defending it as simple math. Well I never thought I’d say it, but on this one I might have to side with the Republicans. I know, Paul Ryan’s opposition to the plan is reactionary and hysterical nonsense. But when it comes to naming the situation, at least he’s honest.

The problem that I have with Obama’s ‘it’s not about class’ defense is that it confuses his approach to the issue of economic inequality. It is discouraging to watch him carry on such an outspoken campaign for economic justice and refer to himself as a ‘warrior for the middle class,’ to then hear him contradict himself in his own defense and deny this initiative a place in his economic strategy. Rather than strengthening his position on economic inequality, Obama’s appeal to objective calculations actually detracts from what is otherwise a commendable attempt at reconfiguring class politics at a federal level.

In my frustration, I find the Republican approach rather refreshing simply in that it calls attention the issue of class politics in Obama’s budget plan. Of course, it is no surprise that this affected Republican outcry has left out an enormous piece of the story, conveniently distracting attention away from their own stakes in an ongoing struggle. As Anthropologist David Graeber recently commented on Democracy Now!: “generally speaking, when you hear a Republican talk about class warfare, you know they’re waging it.”

The truth is that class warfare is being waged every day on behalf of America’s wealthy. We just don’t see it because it is otherwise invisible, ingrained in our political and economic system. It is not a mistake that the federal tax system favors the highest earning individuals and corporations, nor can the promise of reinvestment and corporate expansion be used to defend these tax breaks as an economic necessity.

I think that Obama’s plan has the potential to correct for policies which have historically buttressed economic injustice. I applaud the plan for calling attention to some of America’s worst institutionalized economic discrepancies, and I can also applaud the Republicans for naming class as a political issue in this debate. I just wish Obama would stop being so afraid to join in the conversation.

“I’m gonna do this! I’m going to run for the United States Senate.”

Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign announcement swept over RSS feeds like a hosanna from desperate progressives – redeem us, plainspoken one! She has no disappointed, for within several weeks of her announcement, a quote from one of Warren’s campaign events has made the rounds with even more gusto. This soundbite exemplifies Warren’s appeal to liberal voters, rooted in the clarity with which she advocates for a more equitable distribution of wealth:

“You built a factory out there? Good for you,” she says. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.”

Warren’s directness stands in stark contrast to Obama’s image of ambivalence. Though progressive spirits were lifted somewhat by the introduction of the Buffett Rule, it’s been many months of increasing despair regarding the president’s persistence in pursuing anything resembling progressive economic policy. Especially difficult was Ron Suskind’s portrayal of the administration in his newest book, Confidence Men, which shows Obama’s deference to pro-banker advisors like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, despite spirited opposition on everything from the size of the 2009 stimulus to breaking up large banks, often from equally qualified gurus like Robert Reich and Austan Goolsbee. The book confirms, all too vividly, that an opportunity for more robust prosecution and regulatory restructuring withered until the moment for pro-middle-class policies had passed.  Meanwhile, at the same time Elizabeth Warren leapt onto the political radar screen, most prominently for her tough questioning of Geithner’s handling of TARP, and her persistence in creating the Consumer Federal Protection Bureau.

As has been extensively cataloged before, the Democratic base is disheartened by the gap between the Obama’s passionate campaign rhetoric and the compromises that feel more and more like capitulations. Democratic voters can point to several watershed moments where they realized that the president simply wasn’t fighting for what was right, from our perspective nor, as they believed, from his. The passage of health care reform without a public option, exacerbated by its early removal from the legislation drafting process, was just one such moment.

Now that Elizabeth Warren can speak on her own behalf, she cannot help but provide a contrast between a directness and ambivalence, between principled stance and tepid compromise. It is not just Elizabeth Warren’s words but her persona and  of passion and strong values that expose Obama’s failings among his own base.

I must say, our nation has become rather two faced of late – more blatantly than usual. We apparently stand for freedom and human rights and every other now empty phrase of the American lexicon, yet again contradict ourselves with the President’s recent speech in the UN rejecting Palestinian statehood. More painful to observe is how this Harvey Dentism is slowly sapping away our legitimacy and influence on the world stage.

Obama’s bold declaration of America’s stance against Palestine being granted statehood seems a bit too Bush-esque for my liking. Framing the argument in such a “you’re with us or against us” fashion makes either America look weak if we don’t get our way, or angers the much larger segment of the global population in support of Palestine if we do.

The administration fails to realize we no longer live in a time where everyone will blindly agree with us (or at least pretend to). Growing political and economic power in a growing number of countries provides not only resources for countering our positions, but with that increased strength comes a series of diplomatic and trade relationships capable of granting it legitimacy. France, Turkey, India, Brazil, China, South Africa, and Russia have publicly supported Palestinian statehood, to name a few.

I say it makes America two faced in reference to freedom and human rights due to Palestine’s impoverished living standards compared to Israel and the rest of world. These are directly a result of the current situation, one of blockades and barriers to trade, labor, and capital. GDP per capita is ranked 169th in the world, Israel is 46th. Nearly every statistic relating to quality of life is significantly lower. Unemployment rates our several times greater and access to basic services is denied. Establishing Palestinian statehood would do wonders to formalizing trade relations between the two, while allowing Palestine to trade with other economies, ultimately working to remove these barriers and increase the well-being of Palestinians.

All presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, need to stop responding exclusively to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu and members of his administration, instead doing some homework about the wants of the Israeli people and the world. In a poll conducted jointly by the Jerusalem based Harry Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Palestinian Center for Policy in Ramallah, nearly 70 percent of Israelis supported Palestinian statehood. Further nearly 44 percent of Israelis believed the protest movement favoring Palestinian statehood should form a political party.

MJ Rosenberg published in Aljazeera their may be other motivations for the speech. He suggests Obama is seeking to earn votes from America’s large Jewish population, many of whom live in congressional districts sought by Republicans. I cannot rule this out, yet I find it rather hard to believe. I don’t know which is worse: failing to compromise under global pressure and understanding the sentiment of the peoples involved, or playing foreign policy games for votes with one of the Middle East’s most delicate issues.

Last Wednesday Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat for an interview with Nicholas Kristof in New York. In that interview the Iranian president affirmed that the United States is not more democratic than Iran. Wait. Before your eyes disappear into your head, let us pay close attention to what this means. It will come in handy in our upcoming presidential election. Democracy, it turns out, is dangerous!

Democracy means government according to the will of the majority, period.

In 1979 the people of Iran rose against their oppressive, US-backed government. What they chose, from academics to street vendors, was a government based on the religion of Islam. This, they argued, ensured that fairness, respect and anti-corruption would become the foundation for their new government.

While an argument can be made about how the Iranian revolution was wrested from the hands of the moderates by the hardliners, the point here is that even the moderates were in favor of a government based on this religion. And the will of the majority was indeed implemented, period.

Fast-forward three decades and what we see is that the will of the Iranian majority is still in effect. Granted, the Green Movement demonstrated that not everyone is happy with the Iranian system, but this movement also demonstrated that a mechanism for dissent is absent. Challenges to the system must come from outside of the system, making them illegal.

What distinguishes the United States from Iran is liberalism, not democracy. Liberalism is the principle that protects the freedom of the individual against the majority.

Originally an economic term, today it is employed economically and socially. Henry Paulson, for example, may be considered an economic liberal, meaning that earning money, then keeping or spending it, should be endeavors undertaken without government- read majority- interference. Whether Paulson is a social liberal is not so clear. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, may be considered a social liberal, meaning that everyone has the right to be her own person without adhering to a government- read majority- standard. Whether Lady Gaga is an economic liberal is not so clear either.

As Americans, we live in a liberal democracy. It should not escape us that liberalism and democracy are in constant tension. And they should be. There is something to be said for collective strength and there is something to be said for the value of the individual to society. But too much democracy and we are left with the tyranny of the majority. Too much liberalism, on the other hand, and society breaks down.

As we consider the candidates for the next presidential election, we should keep this in mind: a society based on liberalism and democracy will see a constant antagonism between both principles reflected in government. A consensus will not be reached for as long as the political system endures. But this is nothing to worry about. We should worry when the arguing ends.

Iran may indeed be more democratic than the United States, but this is not necessarily something to celebrate.

Last Tuesday, Herald Square was on temporary lockdown. The NYPD, secret service, unmarked vehicles, and police barricades decorated several blocks.

That evening, I had the privilege of attending Obama for America’s fall gala dinner at Gotham Hall, where Alicia Keys filled the air with her powerful voice as her fingers danced across the piano, and Mayor Cory Booker engaged us with updates on Newark’s progress and his achievements – of course, in his usual comical way. After an amazing dinner, the First Lady eloquently introduced the man of the hour – within a few seconds President Obama made his appearance.

He walked into a cloud of roaring applause and streams of camera flashes. As the noise started to die down, Obama began to confidently lay out his jobs plan. With passion he proclaimed, “Warren Buffett‘s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it!” In a room full of wealthy donors, this statement aroused a standing ovation. “I’m a warrior for the middle class. I’m happy to fight for working Americans,” declared Obama to his high profiled guests.

President Obama continuously fired back at Republicans who have labeled his jobs plan as simply another way to try to tax the wealthy, thereby erroneously calling it “class warfare.” In reality, this is not class warfare; it boils down to remedial math. Both parties are aware that we need to trim the deficit by $4 trillion. So, how can this be accomplished? Well, by a simple give and take. If we do not tax the wealthy, we may need to cut Medicare spending for seniors. If we do not correct the loopholes in our tax codes, we may then be forced to cut spending on education.

But, why shouldn’t the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes? Is there any logical explanation for this?

Elizabeth Warren said it best; “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.” I think we need to remind the wealthy that they did not accumulate their wealth all on their own. The federal and state governments provided a stable enough environment, laws, protection, labor, government programs, funding, etc. so it would be conducive for corporations to create, build, and progress.

Unfortunately, this has turned into greed and the majority of Americans have been left behind.

I had to look “civilized” up in the dictionary this week. I had thought this was a word that I had used correctly for years, but after a former Georgia prosecutor used it this week to describe the decision to execute Troy Davis I was confused. Former DA Spencer Lawton said, “The good news is we live in a civilized society where questions like this are decided based on fact in open and transparent courts of law, and not on street corners.” And before I pulled a Mandy Patinkin al la Princess Bride (“You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”) on Lawton, I wanted to make sure that it was me who got the word’s meaning right.

It was.

Being civilized pertains to “having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.” A nation that practices the death penalty should be considered neither advanced nor humane.

Advanced – When I was young, and my brother hit me, I hit him back. What did my mom do? She scolded me. Just because someone hits you doesn’t make it right to hit them back. Likely you had similar experiences. As we advanced from infancy to adulthood, both individually and socially, a knee-jerk response (often predicated on the need to avenge our own real or perceived slights) became unacceptable.

Humane – To act humanely is to have respect for humanity. Not just some of humanity. Not just those people who are nice. Not just those people who are like you. To differentiate is exactly what makes an action inhumane—you are determining who should be treated like a human and who shouldn’t.

The death penalty asks us as a society to diminish both of these concepts.

It is easier in cases like Davis’, where even many who are in favor of the death penalty were outraged by the injustice of the case, to call out the DA for his oxymoronic usage of “civilized.” But it was just as uncivilized when we executed Lawrence Brewer this week. I abhor his actions, and especially the incredible racism that motivated them, but Texas’ decision to put him to death shows how little we have advanced and how limited a value we place on acting humanely.

It is tough to overcome our bloodlust in the face of wrongs, but that is what shows that we are interested in developing: “The fateful question for the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent their cultural development will succeed in mastering the disturbance of their communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction” (Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents). Based on this week, and a previous GOP debate, it seems many are interested in inverting this logic. The Lawtons of the world want us to believe that aggression is not counter to civilization, but rather the logical output of our legal system. Maybe these folks need a dictionary.

“This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago.”

Ronald Regan said these words during the signing of the Social Security Amendments of 1983.  By raising and accelerating the payroll tax for higher income beneficiaries to pay taxes on part of their benefits, as well as making it mandatory for the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, the Social Security deficit of the early 80’s all but disappeared. Ronald Regan got Social Security reform right.     

But nowadays, all but one of the Republican presidential candidates has taken a firm stance on the idea that Social Security reform is best through privatization. Taking capitalist interests out of the equation for a minute, one only needs to ask themselves, but why? In 2005 George Bush controversially tried to privatize social security in a plan that failed to make it through both houses in Congress and had waning support from constituents. If the plan would have gotten through Congress, the average family would have lost $26,000 on the market during the 2008 recession.

There is even a real life Social Security privatization model in Galveston Texas that has shown mixed results. While some think it was a good idea to privatize the system back in 1981, ultimately, these private plans pay out lower benefits than what would have been received from the Federal Social Security system, except for those residents with a relatively high income and few to no dependents.

Moreover, the current system will work as scheduled until 2035 and moderate tax reforms could help push the program well into the end of the twenty-first century. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill last week that would require all people making over $250,000 a year to pay the payroll tax on all of their income instead of just the first $106,800 required by law. According to California Senator Barbara Boxer, this would provide Social Security with enough funding to maintain current benefit levels until 2086.

If the 2008 Financial Crisis showed us anything, it is that personal financial security shouldn’t be dictated by market capitalism. The idea of decommodification – that our labor is a commodity that can be bought, sold, or traded, and it is largely the job of the government to reduce a persons’ reliance on the market for their well being – rings true. Noam Chomsky said it best on the September 13^th broadcast of Democracy Now!:

 “Social Security is based on a principle that you care about other people…that we care about each other and have a responsibility to one other… it is frightening that there are people who want to have a society that is dominated by power, authority, and wealth in which people are passive and obedient.”

Ultimately, the question at the end of the day is – do the Republican presidential candidates have the wrong idea about Social Security privatization? While this debate is fraught with viewpoints on both sides of the spectrum, maybe once again it’s time to take some advice from Ronald Regan.

The fires of our smoldering class war have been re-stoked. President Obama, assorted GOP lawmakers have told us, has initiated the latest pinko uprising by letting it slip that he’ll be pushing for “the Buffett tax.”

Paul Ryan et al. know their Marx backwards and forwards, and they have noted a potentially ominous development: it seems some rich people are going off book. Warren Buffett’s op-ed in the New York Times received a lot of attention. Is this sort of behavior an isolated incident, a temporary moment of deviance, or will Buffet’s defection signal a pattern that sees a greater number of bourgeois pigs side with the proletariat?

If it’s the latter, Ryan knows Uncle Karl believes that the time for revolution might really be at hand: “Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour … a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848)

Does this mean the Obama–Buffett team is leading the charge to the end of history? The GOP knows they aren’t. But they also know that it’s really tough to argue against taxing the quite wealthy when the country is so debt-ridden and in need of a cash-flow injection to keep necessary programs healthy. Especially when the rich know it’s necessary.

So hopefully President Obama will press ahead with this. Hopefully he’ll embrace his place in the vanguard of history. Hopefully he’s read his Marx, just like Mr. Ryan, and sees that now is the time to strike—“the decisive hour” is at hand.

But I doubt we’ll see anything like that, sadly. Somehow I’m guessing he’s going to turn this into more of a “class reconciliation” effort, compromising away anything controversial, than a war effort. He hasn’t seemed to have that inner Lenin-esque steel so far, and unless Obama has had a revolutionary moment one fears that the GOP will have nothing to fear from this latest battle in the class war.

Michele Bachmann is in the news again this week, and not surprisingly, she’s got her foot in her mouth.

The New York Times devoted a half-page spread of the Friday paper to highlighting Bachmann’s penchant for slip-ups, falsifications and overstatements, citing her recent scientifically unfounded attribution of mental retardation to the HPV vaccine. That Bachmann tends heavily toward fabricated exaggerations should not come as news to anyone, as months of media coverage has emphasized this as her most essential character-trait and repeatedly hailed this hamartia as ultimately what might discredit Bachmann as a 2012 candidate.

Amidst this attention, however, we would be wise to step away from the Shakespearian implications of Bachmann’s flaws, indisputable as they may be, to consider them in a broader context. For one, it is important to remember that in many of her political flaws, Bachmann is not alone. From Sarah Palin’s ‘death panels’ to Newt Gingrich’s accusations of “right-wing social engineering,” many politicians have been freehanded in conjuring the specter of socialism and other liberal spooks to strike fearful chords in the hearts of voters.

Furthermore, there is a wealth of historical evidence that places Bachmann and her fellow candidates in a long-standing tradition of political demagoguery; appealing to a range of irrational fears and emotional rhetoric to refute opponents and cultivate support for their own political agendas. Recall here the ‘welfare queen,’ an invention of Reagan’s political imaginary in the 1960s that has been referenced for over 30 years as ‘evidence’ for massive cuts in social spending well into the Clinton administration. And need we even touch on the world of spectacular facts manipulated and manufactured after 9/11 to validate ongoing attacks in the Middle East?

Don’t get me wrong, Bachmann’s malarkey should not go unnoticed, and I’ll be the first to admit to delighting in her admonishment. But let’s not go so far in sensationalizing her love of fantasy fiction that we risk losing sight of her place in the game of toxic political rhetoric—a phenomenon far more deep-rooted, widespread and damaging than anything attributable to her alone.