EMAIL
PRINT
44 COMMENTSShare and save this post:
Also in Rights and Liberties
Shocked in Death, Shocked in Life: More than a Taser Story
Naomi Klein
The End of America? Naomi Wolf Thinks It Could Happen
Don Hazen
The Most Important Election Case Since Bush v. Gore?
Steven Rosenfeld
Twenty Thousand Protest at Fort Benning: Eleven Face Federal Criminal Trials
Bill Quigley
Uncle Sam's Favorite Targets
Sean Gonsalves
The AlterNet article exploring proposals to restore rights and liberties undermined during the Bush era has sparked several debates among readers. AlterNet invited writer Ari Melber to respond.
A persistent critique in several discussion threads contends that constitutional rights cannot be effectively restored within a political and economic system that is dominated by corporations. One reader argues that a Democratic president "will not repeal any of the harms done by Bush" because both parties "are financed by the same corporate masters and thus are indistinguishable." Another, hilaryuk, contends:
... the erosion of civil liberties is merely another symptom of the malaise affecting all western "democracies" [wherein] the political system now serves an economic one [...] multinational corporate capitalism. The new masters of the universe owe no particular loyalty to any one country or political organization, seeing nation and party as useful tools in serving their interests. They don't primarily hanker after world domination, just bigger profits. So a change of political personnel cannot change anything of significance and any "reforms" will be largely cosmetic.
It is clear that American corporations have a disproportionate impact on our political process -- readers hardly need a review of the evidence here. Professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich now contends that rising corporate power, coupled with a decline in the institutions that once mitigated economic harm, such as unions and regulators, has led to the replacement America's democratic capitalism with "supercapitalism," the title of his new book. The new order runs on "a corporate arms race in which platoons of lobbyists with piles of campaign money pursue laws that will give companies competitive advantage over their rivals," he explains, rather than allowing democracy to facilitate debates over what policies advance the public interest.
Companies are also regularly enlisted to implement U.S. policy, which can include questionable or unconstitutional acts, potentially increasing their stake in policies that undermine rights and liberties. Just surf the news this week and you'll see specific examples of corporations spending capital to back the Bush Doctrine. Telecommunications companies are lobbying for Bush's expansive domestic surveillance bill (and their own retroactive amnesty) while Blackwater lobbies to defend the administration's use of its outsourced soldiers in Iraq. (The FBI found that Blackwater employees killed 14 people without cause in September.) Readers have raised an important dynamic here.
But does that mean corporations will stifle all reforms? No. These macro-economic trends predate 2001, and few would claim that corporations were advancing torture or domestic surveillance "for profit" back then. Simply put, a new administration can change policies, and companies will pursue profit within the new landscape. While the current outlook is bleak for many reasons, (as I note in the article), the telecommunications amnesty debate actually shows how current law can sanction corporate complicity in attacks on our liberties. Lawsuits by the Electronic Frontier Foundation could cost companies millions for privacy violations -- if Congress does not buckle and provide retroactive immunity.
See more stories tagged with: civil liberties, democrats, readers write
Ari Melber is a regular contributor to the Nation magazine and writer for its Campaign '08 blog, and a contributing editor at the Personal Democracy Forum. He served as a legislative side in the U.S. Senate and was a national staff member of the 2004 John Kerry Presidential Campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment