Uighars and other Stateless Peoples

(Photo Credit: Public Domain file shared by QuartierLatin1968.)

A Return to Civility, Part II

In our last podcast, I spoke about the history of recent Supreme Court confirmation proceedings. But why? With so much animosity in the news, why just point out the problems in the nomination, confirmation, and SCOTUS decision-making processes?

To think, there are so many other issues facing our Federal government. Debt-ceiling gamesmanship, deficit-spending, questionable tax policy, exploding entitlement budgets, delusionally bloated Pentagon-spending, ACA, insurance premium-gouging, prescription price-gouging, questions about social media censorship and regulation, environmental regulation and climate change, election interference from overseas, immigration policy,  NAFTA, NATO, ICC, WTO, TransPacific Partnership, human rights… and on, and on…

So why obsess about the deterioration of the Supreme Court confirmation process? Well, because its symptomatic of what I see as the reductionist, myopic, and selfishness that has, while it has always been there, has now completely overtaken the American corporate and political landscape. Identity politics has replaced political debate; Political disagreement is now seen as evidence of a moral or patriotic flaw in those with which we disagree. The neo-tribalistic perceptions of political ideology have become the norm, and compromise is a now bad word. There are fewer and fewer true leaders left in elected government. Common purpose and Noblesse oblige have been subsumed by personal and partisan Machiavellianism. Relativism is now the dominant moral philosophy of Congress and the White House.

But, maybe that’s just me. It seems, to me, that the lack of political courage domestically and internationally has brought us closer to the edge – the point of no return in terms of climate change, the edge of losing the stability of international NGO regimes that were developed in the ashes of the Second World War, instead of recognizing our collective human destiny, the national and international actors seem to desire a return to the competition for international resources and hegemony that brought us colonization, jingoism, racism, two world wars, and near use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

To use psychological terminology, both internationally and domestically, we are regressing, not maturing. We’re playing Hungry Hungry Hippo and zero-sum games, as opposed to incorporating game theory and win-win into our mindsets and guiding principles. We need a long game, not a putting game; as the Iroquois often said in deliberations, we need to think about the Seventh Generation, not our personal checkbooks and neotribalistic aspirations.

Because, what the world needs, if American leadership. Yes, for decades, there has been a robust debate between those who support unilateral American leadership and those who believe in multilateral world leadership with a strong, active, and an engaged American presence in the world stage. What the world has now, is an international power vacuum.

Today, as we speak, there is a genocide against the Rohingya in Burma… and the Burmese say, what happened to the Native Americans, don’t you still keep them on reservations even today?

Saudi and other US allies bomb Yemenese civilians with US-made bombs, and whisper that it’s their Vietnam, their Nicaragua after all, right?

Russia commits assassinations and attempted assassinations of dissidents in the UK, and says, hey, the US did it too in 1953 Iran, 1954 Guatemala, 1963 South Vietnam, and 1973 Chile.

Russia annexes Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and intimidates its neighbors… and sends social media bots to exacerbate divisions between Americans; all the while, the President of the United States says he respects Putin and believes the Head of State of a foreign power, over his own government’s non-partisan intelligence community.

Of course, it is not just Putin that Mr. Trump admires, he has also expressed his admiration for Duarte of the Philippines, Kim of North Korea, and Xi of China.

Yes, China, where the decades-long Hannification of Tibet is essentially complete, during which the US let China into the WTO and facilitated the transfer of technology through not just corporate espionage but nation-state espionage against US corporations… then the US became dependent on borrowing money from the very people who have stolen US technology, and even imprisoned the Panchen Lama. Would the US react so banally if the Vatican Secretary of State were kidnapped, or the heir to the Chief Rabbi of Israel?

Which brings us to this week. This week news broke that there are nearly a million Uighurs interred in concentration camps in the People’s Republic of China. Once again, the US hems and haws. Officials toss the word ‘sanctions’ out again like a panacea, whereas it is more like a placebo.

After all, China has weathered the steel sanctions well enough, while American soybean farmers suffer and Harley-Davidson has announced it is moving some production to Europe. Not overseas where its cheaper as the jingoistic narrative goes, but to the land of socialism, free university, and free healthcare… Europe.

So, how does the US tell China to stop the internment of Uighurs. The US still imprisons foreigners in GITMO without Due Process and separates asylum-seeking families at the US border. And just this week, as news of the Uigher re-education camps broke, leader of the United States has denied the death of thousands of Puerto Ricans…

And our response, as Americans and human beings, our response has been to double-down into neotribalism and identity politics. The problems facing the world are not the fault of one man, but it has been exasperated by him.

Trumpism needs to be rejected and filed away in history with fascism, Stalinism, McCarthyism, South American Caudillos, and rulers from across the globe including the Middle East and Africa who use cult-of-personality strongman tactics. I hear conservative voices cry out against the increasingly violent Left, the so-called AntiFa; but many of the same voices have been silent about the violent Right… from the the continuous presence of the KKK in America, the institutional racism of Southern law enforcement that attacked Civil Rights protesters, right up to the militia movement, the Sovereign Citizen movement, Ammon and Randy Bundy, etc.

Violent rhetoric and political violence from all sides of the political spectrum must be stopped. Instead of complaining about political violence and violence rhetoric from our ideological opposites, we all need to remove the log from our own eyes and ideologies before pointing out the splinter in others’ eyes and ideologies.

Democratic politicians who play the same games of manipulative populism and fearmongering need to be voted out; we used to talk about who we are, not who we’re not. We used to promote vision, not vitriol. Yes, its hard to be the minority party, but it doesn’t mean you have to lower your standards to the lowest forms of politics. It is also hard to be the party in power, to govern not gripe. The traditional Republicans need to regain their moral standards. Since 2010, traditional Republicans have thought they could use the Tea Party movement, only to become controlled by them… don’t believe me? Just as Speaker John Boehner. Ask Jeb Bush. The Republican leaders who have tolerated Trump in exchange for tax cuts and Supreme Court seats need to go. We need new leadership in both parties. We need national unity, not national dysfunction. The New Jerusalem is shrinking from its promise as the beacon on the hill for the world to look up to, no, America has become dystopian, not Utopian.

It’s possible. Rhode Island, long one of the most nepotistic judiciaries, implemented reforms that have ushered in candidates of qualification, not political affiliation. A return to a supermajority for Supreme Court nominations. An end to the gerrymandered districting in the House of Representatives. Bi-partisan co-sponsorship for legislation. Guaranteed up/down votes on bills offered by the minority party. Depoliticalization of the debt ceiling. Ending dark money. Rebuilding partnership with historic allies, and maybe taking a break from questionable new allies. A commitment by politicians, especially presidents, that recognizes treaties are -according to Article VI of the US Constitution- the supreme law of the land and cannot be withdrawn from, but need to be renegotiated or unratified legislatively at the 2/3 threshold in the Constitution.

We can meaningfully address the myriad of issues facing our Federal government. Debt-ceiling gamesmanship, deficit-spending, questionable tax policy, exploding entitlement budgets, delusionally bloated Pentagon-spending, ACA, insurance premium-gouging, prescription price-gouging, questions about social media censorship and regulation, environmental regulation and climate change, election interference from overseas, immigration policy,  NAFTA, NATO, ICC, WTO, TransPacific Partnership, human rights… and on, and on… We can do it if we collaborate and compromise with a win-win mentality, not the reductionist neotribal mindset that has become the norm in recent years.

It’s possible. And, even if it wasn’t, are we willing to live in the tit-for-tat Banana Republic as we’ve become, or do we want the new America to be like the old America: imperfect, but searching to be a more perfect union.

PHOTO CREDIT (Public Domain):  https://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/american_originals_iv/images/jfk_inaugural_address/inauguration.html
Photographer/Painter: Record Group 111, Records of the Office of the Chief Signal Officer (111-SC-578830)

A Return to Civility in SCOTUS Nominations is Long Overdue

(Photo: Public Domain, Library of Congress)

On this day, September 15, 1981, The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Republican-nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to become the first female justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. A few days later, on September 21st, O’Connor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 99–0. (According to Rebecca Loew, Senator Max Baucus of Montana was absent from the vote, and sent O’Connor a copy of A River Runs Through It as an apology. O’Connor became the 102nd Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Since then, eleven justices have been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a twelfth confirmation and appointment imminent: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, RBG, Stephen Breyer, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch.

103. The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee reported Republican-nominated Scalia unanimously out of committee. The full Senate debated Scalia’s nomination only briefly, confirming him 98–0 on September 17, 1986.

104. The Republican-led U.S. Senate confirmed Republican-nominated Kennedy on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0. Absent from the vote were three Democrats: Paul Simon and Al Gore who were campaigning for the Democratic nomination for US President and Joe Biden who was sick.

105. In 1990, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee reported Republican-nominated Souter out the committee by a vote of 14–3, the Senate confirmed the nomination by a vote of 90–9.

106. In the 1991 Thomas’ confirmation process, the Democrat-led Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Republican-nominated Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote by the Democrat-controlled US Senate on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

107. The Democrat-led United States Senate confirmed Democrat-nominated RBG by a 96 to 3 vote on August 3, 1993.

108. Democrat-nominated Breyer was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled US Senate on July 29, 1994, by an 87 to 9 vote.

109. On September 22, 2005, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee approved Republican-nominated John Roberts’s nomination by a vote of 13–5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein casting the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29 by a margin of 78–22. All Republicans and the one Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22–22. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice. However, all subsequent confirmation votes have been even narrower.

110. In 2005, Republican-nominated Samuel Alito was reported out of the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10–8 party-line vote. After a failed filibuster attempt by MA Senator John Kerry, on January 31, the Senate confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58–42, with four Democratic senators voting for confirmation and one Republican and an Independent voting against.

111. On July 28, 2009, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee approved Democrat-nominated Sotomayor; the 13–6 vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and only one Republican supporting her. On August 6, 2009, Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 68–31. The vote was largely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and nine Republicans supporting her.

112. On July 20, 2010, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13–6 to recommend Kagan’s confirmation to the Democrat-led US Senate. On August 5th the full Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 63–37. The voting was largely on party lines, with five Republicans (Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe) supporting her and one Democrat (Ben Nelson) opposing.

113. On April 3, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Republican-nominated Gorsuch nomination out of committee along a party-line vote of 11–9. On April 6, 2017, Senate Democrats filibustered the confirmation vote of Gorsuch, after which the Republicans invoked the so-called “nuclear option”, allowing a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee to be broken by a simple majority vote. On April 7, 2017, the Republican-led US Senate confirmed Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court by a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans in attendance.

It is worth noting, that only from 2009–2011 in the 111th Congress did either party have a super-majority. In most other years, the U.S. Senate was split roughly 50-50, plus or minus two to 5 seats.

What has happened? We have increasingly politicized the Court, we have nominated more and more ideological candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court instead of nominating people, we’re nominating party. A return to civility in SCOTUS nominations is long overdue.

 

Podcast: Who Cares About NYT Op-Ed?

Who Wrote the Anonymous Op-Ed?

(Photo: Daniel Schwen)

Who’s the anonymous Op-Ed writer? Like FBI Agent Jack Baer looking for Keyser Söze in The Usual Suspects (1995), the first question is, does the anonymous writer exist? If only President Trump had Jack Bauer to figure it all out in 24 hours, instead of Jack Baer looking in all the wrong places with all the usual suspects.

Does the Op-Ed writer exist? Yes, more than likely the writer exists. The New York Times is not going to publish a fake Opinion Editorial. But there are other possibilities as well. First, is the author a singular writer, or an amalgamation of authors? People in the Executive Branch aren’t exactly standing up next to Kirk Douglas shouting, “I am Spartacus!” “No, I am Spartacus!” (By the way, Senator Orrin Hatch’s tweet yesterday was perhaps the funniest tweet by any politician in the social media era, just sayin’.) No, instead, we’re meant to believe that there an Illuminati-like club inside the Trump Administration whose members banally walk the halls of the White House with facades of loyalty while hiding their true intentions like armies of Londoners wearing Guy Fawkes masks in V is for Vendetta (2005).

So, did one person write the Op-Ed, or was one person chosen to write for the group, or did the group of White House officials who are concerned write the Op-Ed together? After all, if there are “many of the senior officials in his [Trump’s] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” then my question is, do these senior officials met together? Do these senior officials coordinate with each other? Because, if there is a ‘Resistance’ in the White House working together, then why would a singular member write an Op-Ed to the New York Times?

Which brings me to the next question, why was the Op-Ed written? What was the point of the Op-Ed? It seems to me that the author could idyllically-speaking be genuinely seeking to force a conversation about the 25th Amendment. Ulteriorly-speaking, however, the author or authors may be simply trying to inoculate themselves from a future fallout. Because, the writer’s career in this Administration is over, and probably any career in public office. When the identity is ultimately revealed, the best financial hope for the writer is a book deal, compensation for TV appearances, and the long-term goal of resurrecting one’s reputation in 20 years like Watergate’s John Dean. In international relations, there is something called Rational Actor Theory, in which we assume that people make decisions rationally in their own best interests and/or the best interests of their country. Presumably, then, the author wrote the Op-Ed for a rational reason, whether we agree with the decision to write or not.

So, why now? First of all, why September 5, 2018? Is it a coincidence that the Op-Ed was published the day after parts of Bob Woodward’s new book Fear was released? The only person that I can think of who is that calculating in the release of information is Bob Mueller. And, for the record, I don’t think Mueller is the writer. I do think it’s a fascinating coincidence. Because the Woodward book was released by CNN, whereas the Op-Ed was published by the New York Times. It is also worth pointing out that, if the Times published on September 5th, the Op-Ed was written several days earlier, before the Woodward scoop by CNN.

To discuss the why now? returns us to the question of why? again as well. I’ve already discussed the personal interests of the author(s), but are their other considerations? Strategically-speaking, who benefits from the publication of the Opinion-Editorial? At face value, the biggest winners from the publication of the Op-Ed are the New York Times, as well as the partisan media from both sides of the political spectrum, Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018, and Trump himself. Yes, Trump benefits from the Op-Ed. The Op-Ed reinforces partisanship of both those who loathe, as well as those who love, President Donald J. Trump.

As far as I can tell, the losers in this situation are the White House senior officials, whether the staffers are the author of the Op-Ed or not. Because, if the author(s) are real, there must be a rational impetus to write the Op-Ed now, because it’s the “senior officials in his [Trump’s] own administration [who] are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” who now have a harder job.

While Dick Armitage et al. may have outed Valarie Plame to deflect criticism of the Bush Administration, in this situation the covert operatives have outed himself, herself, or themselves. Because of the publication of the Op-Ed, senior officials may now be required to take polygraphs, sign affidavits, live under a cloud of suspicion, work in a more chaotic work environment, all the while helping to run the government of the United States and clandestinely “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations.” Why would someone(s) risk exposure?

And, after all, what does the word senior mean anyway? There is always the possibility that the author of the Op-Ed has an overly self-indulgent sense of his/her own importance. But, if it was not a recognizable senior official, why would the New York Times not only go to lengths to hide the identity, I’m more interested in how the New York Times would even know the person in the first place? Imagine how many letters-to-the-editor and opinion editorials each and every day; How and why did this Op-Ed get noticed? Because the author is recognizable and/or a verifiably senior official. And that official’s (or officials’) own job(s) just got harder. Inevitably, the senior official(s) who wrote the supposedly anonymous Op-Ed will be identified. The senior official will be fired. Perhaps the author cares not about being fired; the writer is so angry or so concerned, that rational thought has exited the building and the senior official (Kevin Hassett or Kirstjen Nielsen) will ride into martyrdom like the Charge of the Light Brigade.  But, rationally-speaking and according to Rational Actor Theory, the senior official would only take that risk if the official was already leaving (Don McGahn and Jeff Sessions), an official with enormous stature who has already retired once (Dan Coats), or one of the only two senior officials in the White House who cannot be fired: President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Michael Richard Pence.

Yes, Trump benefits from the publication of the Times’ Op-Ed, but I’m not sure Trump has the strategic calculation skills to plant an anonymous Op-Ed like a Straw Soldier (the Times certainly would not publish an anonymous Op-Ed that the editorial staff knew to be President Trump). And then there is Mike Pence, who increasingly reminds me of the fictitious Vice President Ted Matthews in the (1996) film My Fellow Americans. The only senior official in the administration who cannot be fired and who also has a penchant for using the word lodestar. Which raises the question, why would an anonymous writer use a word that could so easily be tied back to the senior official? The anonymous author is also a little too happy to use the word resistance for me to believe Sessions is the Op-Ed writer, though he certainly has become a significant roadblock to Trump’s impulsiveness.

I suspect that a lawyer who has no interest in running for political office or being in the public spotlight, who already met with Bob Mueller’s team for 30 hours, and who has already announced his departure from the White House might be well considered one of the usual suspects. After all, it is already well-known that McGahn blurred the truth to prevent Trump from firing Mueller in December 2017. But why would McGahn write an anonymous opinion editorial to the New York Times now, at this juncture in time? Quit now and write it with a byline or wait until the announced departure in December 2018 to write an opinion editorial.

I can, however, envision a scenario in which the Director of National Intelligence is cognizant enough to intentionally use lodestar as a red herring, and use the word resistance too without too much discomfort. There is little question that the former U.S. Senator, who served with John McCain, would always choose country over party and, frankly, maybe be inspired to write an anonymous Op-Ed to the New York Times as he watched two memorial services and watch non-stop praise for McCain’s patriotic independence. I suspect Dan Coats would be aware of “many of the senior officials in his [Trump’s] own administration [who] are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations” whether those officials are cooperating with each other or operating as patriotic lone wolves. Dan Coats, former Representative of IN-4 and former U.S. Senator from Indiana, also knows both Vice President Dan Quayle of Indiana and Vice President Mike Pence of Indiana quite well. He knows Mike Pence, the only senior official who cannot be fired and is the beneficiary of any impeachment proceedings or invocation of the 25th Amendment.

Thoughts on the Revolutions of 1848

(Photo: Barricade Rue Soufflot by Horace Vernet)

Revolutions and Economics

Revolutions are caused and driven by economics, and the Revolutions of 1848 are no exception. The Agricultural Revolution, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the Dot Com Revolution: nearly all revolutions are economic. In the case of 1848, it was the economic factors that caused the social and political upheaval that we now call the Revolutions of 1848.

One of the economic factors were increased agricultural productivity combined, ironically, with poor harvests. Technological improvements in farming meant less manpower was needed on the farm. Specifically, from the 1830s and 1840s, Prussia, Saxony, and other German states reorganized agriculture, introducing sugar beets, turnips, and potatoes, yielding a higher level of food production that enabled a surplus rural population to move to industrial areas. Later, however, a series of poor harvests that drove hungry farmers to join the surplus farming populations to seek food and employment in the urban areas of Europe. The infamous potato light of Ireland actually affected many places in northern Europe as well as the Czech region of Central Europe. The Rhineland had drastic shortages of rye and, these combined shortages then also increased the prices for food in Europe according to the economic principles of supply and demand.

The increased urbanization also served the needs of increasing industrialization in Europe as well. Urban workers labored long hours with little or no days off in order to eke out a basic living. Child labor in the mills and factories, earning a fraction of their adult counterparts’ wages. Extremely unsafe working conditions, with insufficient access to fresh air, sanitary facilities, and breaks.

While historians usually avoid using the term Industrial Revolution in France because of the slow development, there was significant growth in railroads and banking (Banque de France). France became a luxury location, fueling perceptions of class inequality. Belgium was the second most industrializing state next to the United Kingdom, and the German states had truck line linking all major cities even in the absence of a central government.

In the German states, the industrial revolution in the textile and railroad industries created an economic boom for the nascent middle class of managers and engineers. The rising middle class had rising economic and political expectations that blossomed further with the Zollverein starting in 1834. Thus, the political expectations versus the political realities contributed to the Revolutions of 1848 in the German states.

These agricultural and industrial economic factors thus bred dissatisfaction with the political leadership in Europe and demands for more participation in government and democracy. The governments of Europe affected were authoritarian monarchies, Sicily, France, Austro-Hungary, the various Germanies, etc. It is worth noting that the United Kingdom, the most democratic government in Europe, did not have a Revolution in 1848; the other non-revolution that stands out is Russia. As has been said, Russia did have a Revolution of 1948, but it happened in 1905.

Theoretical Models of Revolution

There are many theories of how and why revolutions happen. One of the most read theories is “Anatomy of Revolution” by Crane Brinton. In 1938, Brinton outlining the uniformities of political revolutions: the fall of the Old Regime, the rise of revolutionaries, moderates share power with radicals, radicals achieve total power and the corresponding reign of terror, then the convalescence stage. This model has also been described as the fever model: incubation, symptomatic, crisis, and convalescence. Antelope Yunglang has a very pro-revolutionary model called the Four Stages of the Revolution that identify the Insurrection Stage, Maintenance Stage, Development Stage, and the Final Period.

In addition to Brinton, Fever Model, and Yunglang, there is also the four-stage Common Process Model.  The “common process” holds that revolutions begin with (1) mobilization of liberals and nationalists, (2) these people win success and political concessions initially, (3) tensions within ranks lead to splits between moderates and radicals, (4) making a counterrevolution possible.

Both the Revolutions of 1848 in France and the German states fit the common process model well, though it perhaps is most fitting to the French experiences of 1848:

In France, liberals and nationalists rose up in February, created a provisional government, began to disagree, and then the conservatives and moderates won the national election in December. The election of Louis Napoleon effectively ended the Revolution of 1848 in France.

In the German states, the March Days led to the creation of the Frankfurt Assembly in May of 1848. This a primary distinction between the two revolutions. In France, the Provisional Government was, well, the government. Louis Philippe had abdicated and gone into exile. In the German states, the revolutionaries never took control of the Prussian, Austrian, or other German governments. While the revolutionaries won success and political concessions initially, the inability of delegates to become the legitimate government ended the revolution at that point. The Stage Three of the Common Process (tensions between moderates and radicals) was meaningless because the moderates and radicals never achieved the power of the purse or the power over the army in the German states. Thus, there was no need for a counterrevolution because the revolution stalled after Stage Two. The withdrawal of the Austrian delegates from the Frankfurt Assembly, the October Declaration by Kaiser King Frederick William IV of Prussia, and the arrest of the remaining members of the assembly in Stuttgart by Imperial soldiers effectively ended the German Revolution of 1848.

Success or Failure?

While historians have stated that over 50 countries were affected by the Revolutions of 1848 which began in Sicily in January, then spread across Europe after the more significant February revolution in France. However, the major revolutions only occurred in France, the German states, and the Austrian Empire. Major revolutions in 3 out of 50 countries is hardly a spectacular success. A monarchy in France under King Louis Philippe was ultimately replaced with an Empire under Louis Napoleon. Hungarian rebellions in the Austrian Empire achieved a name-change; The Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The proposed new Germany was rejected by the Junkers and ultimately by Prussian Kaiser Frederick William as well.

The Frankfurt Assembly of German states failed over the Greater or Lesser Germany question as well as the delegates of money, land, or army (John Merriman, 1996; Mike Rapport, 2008). Revolutions need armies and money, as well as ideas. The revolutionaries of 1848 failed to control the ‘power of the purse’ in both German and Austria. In France, the rural populations ended the revolution by their conservative votes in the election of December 1848, returning the power of the purse and the army to the monarchists and counter-revolutionary members of the government.

A spectacular failure indeed.

The Effect of the Metternich System

While the Metternich System may have ended the Revolutions of 1848, the Metternich System was also responsible for creating the Revolutions of 1848 as well. The reactionary governments installed at the Congress of Vienna became the lid on the boiling pot of liberalism and nationalism that exploded in 1848. The reduction in the number of German states at the Congress of Vienna, however, strengthened the position of Prussia. The stronger Prussia, therefore, was in a more entrenched position to resist the revolutionaries from the March Days and subsequent demands by the Frankfurt Assembly. Metternich’s reestablishment of Austria dominance in the Italian peninsula after the defeat of Murat’s Naples also indirectly limited the success of Italian revolutions in Sicily and Sardinia.

The Congress System created the very international communication and coordinance that was absent from the Revolutions of 1848. While the Revolutions of 1848 were short-lived, not all the revolutions ended with the original or similarly repressive governments in power.

In the Netherlands, King William II preemptively and proactively altered the Dutch constitution to reform elections and effectively end the absolute monarchy. In Ireland, the German states, and Italy, the Revolutions of 1848 fueled nationalism that ultimately led to independence and unification respectively. In France, while the December elections led to the conservative Second Empire, the universal suffrage achieved in the Revolution of 1848 was never taken away.

It is interesting that the United Kingdom, perhaps the most democratic government in Europe, supported the Metternich System while even the monarchist Duke of Wellington pushed democratic reforms and Catholic Emancipation in Ireland. In the years between the Battle of Waterloo and the 1848 Revolutions, the anti-absolutist Whig Party led the British government for nearly 12 years. In fact, the Whig Party controlled the British government during the Revolutions of 1848.

Why did the democratically inclined and anti-absolutist Prime Minister John Russell not do more to support the Revolutions of 1848? Perhaps the success of the Metternich System was to discourage British interference in Continental Europe, not the establishment of reactionary regimes on the Continent.

Metternich and the Metternich System may have been important in the relative failure of the 1848 Revolutions, but the absence of British agitation for increased democratization in Europe is probably as influential as the role of the Metternich System.

 

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day; What the heck is Labor Day anyway? I know the banks are closed, and the stock markets too. Labor Day is considered the traditional end of summer, but that’s really September 21st. It used to be the end of summer vacation, but may schools start in mid-to-late August these days. I know! It’s a fashion date! Can’t wear white after Labor Day, right?

On Labor Day weekend, social media is usually inundated with meme’s honoring teachers, law enforcement, fire professionals, etc. For most of us, I suppose the holiday has become thought of as a celebration of public sector workers, or all workers in general. But it’s not. Its neither.

Labor Day is the workers’ movement in the United States and around the world. What? Does that sound socialist or too Communist? I don’t know and, honestly, I don’t really care. Because that’s exactly what Labor Day is: a celebration of blue-collar workers and the solidarity of unionization. Interesting, however, the US intentionally placed our celebration of workers solidarity in September to avoid identifying the holiday with International Worker’s Day which is May 1st every year and has a significant history with the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago and the pan-Communist movement of the late 19th century.

I say I don’t care if the holiday sounds too socialist or Communist because I’m tired of how we seem to ignore or rewrite history. It is a day to celebrate the labor movement, not the general and vague concept of work. Those social media memes I mentioned, notice that professions honored are unionized professions. Again, law enforcement, fire professionals, teachers, and nurses. We usually don’t give shout-outs to doctors, lawyers, and hedge fund managers on Labor Day, do we?

The first Labor Day was celebrated in Oregon in 1887. At the time, as now, it was a recognition of trade unions and the labor movements. It’s a recognition of the workers who took an UNPAID day off work on September 5, 1882, so that nowadays, many of us receive a PAID day off of work.

I mentioned the rewriting and watering down of history? Go to the Department of Labor’s website, and you’ll see no mention of unionization, union-busting, or strikes. You will read a few references to two unions in particular, but the site glosses over the reasoning that unions were necessary in the first place. Indeed, the site begins and concludes with empty jingoistic phrases about the “the greatest worker in the world – the American worker.” Might as well stand while reading the diatribe while placing your MAGA hat across your heart.

If this holiday is about the American blue-collar worker, why is it that the banks, government offices, and financial markets are closed, while Wal-Marts, Chic-Filets, Hobby Lobbys are open. Fun fact, Costco is closed on Labor Day. You’re welcome…

In an era where many are suspect of the government deep state and the liberal media bias, it’s amusing that it’s the Department of Labor’s version of the history of Labor Day is so biased and whitewashed (I wonder if its whitewashed on the warm cycle of the washing machine with all those white-collars?).

For a more honest and raw recollection of the origins of Labor Day, take a look at history.com:

Labor Day, an annual celebration of workers and their achievements, originated during one of American labor history’s most dismal chapters.

In the late 1800s, at the height of the Industrial Revolution in the United States, the average American worked 12-hour days and seven-day weeks in order to eke out a basic living. Despite restrictions in some states, children as young as 5 or 6 toiled in mills, factories and mines across the country, earning a fraction of their adult counterparts’ wages.

People of all ages, particularly the very poor and recent immigrants, often faced extremely unsafe working conditions, with insufficient access to fresh air, sanitary facilities and breaks.

As manufacturing increasingly supplanted agriculture as the wellspring of American employment, labor unions, which had first appeared in the late 18th century, grew more prominent and vocal. They began organizing strikes and rallies to protest poor conditions and compel employers to renegotiate hours and pay. Many of these events turned violent during this period, including the infamous Haymarket Riot of 1886, in which several Chicago policemen and workers were killed. Others gave rise to longstanding traditions: On September 5, 1882, 10,000 workers took unpaid time off to march from City Hall to Union Square in New York City, holding the first Labor Day parade in U.S. history.”

~~~

So, I guess, to me, Labor Day has taken its equal place at the table of hypocrisy with so many of the other watered down and revisionist federal holidays. Sure, we have a wonderful vanilla-ly quaint and boring holiday on January 1st to celebrate New Years Day on the Gregorian Calendar, right? Well, at least its been New Year’s Day in the British Empire and former colonies since 1752, but I digress…

Then we have the other nine federal holidays (one more aside, why wouldn’t we have 12 federal holidays in twelve months, instead of 10 federal holidays in 8 months…) What was I saying? Oh, right, our wonderful other nine federal holidays:

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, when we celebrate the Civil Rights’ Movement and its leader, even while limiting black suffrage through voter ID laws, George Washington’s Birthday, which isn’t even on his birthday, Memorial Day which most people can’t distinguish from Veterans Day, Independence Day, which isn’t even the day that the Second Continental Congress voted for independence, or signed the Declaration of Independence, our beloved Labor Day that we celebrate even while spreading “Right to Work” anti-union legislation across the country, Columbus Day to honor an Italian who worked for the Spanish to discover the Bahamas, Hispaniola, and Cuba and then proceeded to rape, pillage, enslave, and murder. Great guys, so proud to celebrate a guy who has nothing to do with American history, or if we want to extend his legacy to the United States, I suppose we’re celebrating the genocide of the Native American peoples? In November, we celebrate Veterans Day Part II. Actually, in all seriousness, Veterans Day honors the living veterans and was specifically established on November 11th to replace Armistice Day which ended World War I, whereas Memorial Day was established as a Civil War holiday to honor deceased soldiers. Both holidays are worthy, but I wonder what it says about us as a country that we have two federal holidays about war, why not celebrate December 10th which is recognized internationally as Human Rights Day? Finally, we have the eighth and ninth federal holidays: Thanksgiving Day which celebrates neither the first Thanksgiving (the first actual feast of Thanksgiving in what was to become the United States occurred on April 20, 1598, in the area of present-day El Paso, Texas, when Juan de Oñate offered a feast of thanksgiving for the bountiful food and water that saved his expedition), nor is it the first English colony, that would be Virginia, but for some reason we celebrate the second English colony of Plimouth [sic] and the goodwill of the New England Native Americans, who were then repaid by the stealing of their lands and even enslavement and deportation after King Phillip’s War. And then there’s the final federal holiday of the year, when the country that ratified the First Amendment barring the establishment of any state religion, celebrates the second most important holiday in the Christian religion. But, hey, that’s just my take on the 10 federal holidays of the United States.

~~~

Today is one of those federal holidays. Let’s not lose sight of our history as we water-down the celebration the US labor movement and minimize the history of unions in America. After all, we don’t celebrate Cesar Chavez on Martin Luther King Day, and we don’t celebrate UPS drivers on Veterans Day, nor do we celebrate Moses, Kristna, Buddha, or Mohammed on Christmas Day, so why have we taken Labor Day away from the unions?

Unions are important to the long-term health of the American economy and those who would say otherwise are lining their pockets with disproportionate income. Those would include not just the backers of Right to Work legislation, and the reduction of Capital Gains Taxes, etc., etc., but also the bloated compensation receiving CEOs.

The famous or infamous (depending on your political perspective) Dodd-Frank Act requires businesses to disclose the ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay in their annual proxies. 2018 was the first year that this provision came into force, so what have we learned?

For example, Mattel CEO Margo Georgiadis was awarded almost $31.3 million in 2017. Meanwhile, the median worker at the company earned $6,271. The ratio? 4,987 to 1.

For comparison, At Berkshire Hathaway, the pay ratio is roughly 2 to 1. CEO Warren Buffett makes $100,000. The median worker at his company makes $53,510. That’s right, one of the two richest Americans, Warren Buffet, has a compensation ratio of 2-1 to the average employee.

Now, some may argue with me by talking about how well the stock market is doing, but remember, blue-collar workers do not invest in the stock market, except through their retirement 401Ks, so the day-to-day successes of the financial markets do not trickle down to the workers but do benefit the white-collar workers who are more likely to have stock options as part of their compensation packages.

Why does this matter? What does this have to do with unions and Labor Day? Well, in 2016, in terms of raw numbers, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. Statistically, union workers average 10-30% higher pay than non-union in the United States after controlling for individual, job, and labor market characteristics. Hence, for example, government jobs are pretty good, right? And, unsurprisingly 35.3% of government employees are unionized, coincidence? Meanwhile, while only 6.7% of private-sector employees are unionized.

Now, if you don’t mind me geeking out a bit, consider these two other pieces of fun facts:

Percentage-wise, 10.7% of American workers belonged to a union in 2016, compared to 20.1% in 1983. And, if you take government employees out of the picture, the current union membership in the private sector has fallen under 7% — levels not seen since 1932. You know, the time of the Great Depression?

Income disparity, deficit-spending by the government, and the static wages of the average American-worker (adjusted for inflation) are all related to the decline of union power in the United States. And that decline is intentional. I have mentioned these so-called Right to Work states. The argument goes that workers should be able to choose whether they belong to a union or not; of course, one could argue that they chose to belong to a union when they chose their profession, right? I mean, when I join the army, I know I’ll have to do physicals. When I join air-traffic controlling, I know I have to take drug tests, etc., etc.

But back to R-T-W; the more appropriate legislation would pass a Hyde Amendment for unions to limit political spending of individual dues to the union, not to block the union dues themselves. The R-T-W is about union-busting, not the rights of workers or free speech.

And Labor Day? Labor Day is a holiday to celebrate the history of the unions in this country, the obstacles that unions and their blue-collar workers had to overcome, and the benefits that almost all American workers take for granted these days: the 8 hour work day, not 12 or 14; the five day work week, not 6 or 7; the prevention of child labor; and the right to collectively bargain for fair wages and benefits.

Honor our Veterans on Veterans Day, honor our Civil Rights leaders on MLK, honor our Founding Fathers on Washington’s birthday and the 4th of July, and honor labor unions on Labor Day.

~~~

My name is Tom Keefe, and I’m your Babbling and sometimes blasphemous Professor,

Happy Labor Day everyone!

~~~

 

References, Links, and Resources

https://www.history.com/topics/holidays/labor-day

https://www.dol.gov/general/laborday/history

https://books.google.com/books?id=bIFIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA443#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/news/economy/ceo-pay-afl-cio/index.html

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TUD