Friday, September 28, 2012

The Myth of Republican National Security Prowess


Each election year, Americans are bombarded with Republican claims that the Democrats are weak on defense, and only the GOP can protect America. Historically, however, the Republican Party has been pathetically weak on national security – so bad in fact, we came close to losing more than one war.

After the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party opposed maintaining an  army of any appreciable strength. As soon as the war ended, the GOP-controlled Congress reduced the U.S. Army to a bare shadow of its wartime strength. They did this despite the fact that a very clear and present danger existed at the country’s southern border. At that point in history, the much larger French Army occupied Mexico. French dictator, Napoleon III, openly harbored  a desire to wrestle control of France’s former Louisiana Territory back from the United States. 

Nevertheless, Republicans repeatedly cut the army’s strength. Throughout the late 1800s, during which the GOP held virtual one-party rule, the American army’s strength dropped to 27,000 regular troops. What troops we did have were poorly trained and poorly armed. While the rest of the world’s armies were adopting modern magazine-fed repeating rifles, the U.S. Army was still armed with archaic single-shot Springfield “Trapdoor” rifles, many of them simply remanufactured from Civil War muzzle loading guns. 

During the Indian Campaigns of that period, many of the Native American tribes were better armed than the average army regiment. Col. George Custer and the men who met their fate with him at the Little Bighorn did so not only because they were outnumbered, but they were out-gunned, too. Armed with their single-shot Springfields, Custer’s men could not match the intensity of fire offered by Sitting Bull’s forces, many of whom were armed with repeating rifles like the Henry, the Spencer, and the Winchester. 

Out Gunned by the Spaniards 

Many of our troops were still armed with Trapdoors during the Spanish American War in 1898. Those who were issued modern Krag-Jorgensen magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles complained that because of the lack of funds for ammunition, the army had  disabled the magazines, requiring soldiers to reload the weapon after each shot. The rifles also still used black power, which revealed the shooter’s position with a massive cloud of smoke. 

The Spanish Army, on the other hand, was armed  with state-of-the-art Mauser repeating rifles and rapid firing Maxim machine guns, both firing smokeless powder. The only rapid fire weapon our troops had were Civil War-vintage Gatling Guns. 

The American Navy didn’t fare much better under Republican rule. In 1881 the London humor magazine Puck described the U.S. Navy as a force of "three mud-scows supplemented by a superannuated canal-boat." It wasn’t much of an exaggeration. 

The GOP-controlled Congress funded a naval shipbuilding program that began in 1890 and continued throughout the end of the century. But the funding they provided for training ship crews was so meager, sailors were rarely able to practice their gunnery. As a result, during the Spanish American War, U.S. naval gunnery was pathetic.  At the Battle of Manila Bay, American ships fired a total of 4,959 shells of various sizes. They scored only 72 hits. At the Naval  Battle of Santiago de Cuba, the U.S. Navy fired 1,300 shells; only 25 found their mark. 

In his memoir of the Spanish American War, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican himself, condemned his own party’s failure to support the army and navy with adequate funding. In the end, the U.S. won the Spanish American War only by  the courage of its soldiers and sailors, and the fact the Spanish never wanted to fight a war over Cuba in the first place. 

TR tried to improve American military power during his presidency, but his policies were largely reversed by his own party after he left  the White House. 

When a European war broke out in 1914, it was the isolationist Republican Party that led the movement to keep America out of it. It would be up to a peace-loving Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, to see the dangers posed to this country by a collapse of Britain and France and build up our military in preparation to sending them “over there.” Still, America’s military equipment was so limited that the bulk of U.S. troops in WWI were armed with British Enfield rifles, French-made Chauchat machine guns, and French- and British-built aircraft. 

When Republicans again controlled the government in the interwar years, U.S. military strength again shrank and stagnated. Important legislation passed in 1920 established the framework for an improved, professional army. However, because Republicans controlled both houses from 1920 to the early 1930s, lack of appropriate funding prevented the reforms from being fully implemented. The U.S. Army so stagnated that some career officers remained junior officers like lieutenants and captains for nearly their whole careers. 

Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and his fellow Democrats in Congress began the  rebuilding of the American military in the early 1930s, despite  opposition from isolationist – and in many cases, pro-fascist – Republican legislators. 

Establishment of the Defense Industry 

World War II was followed by years of decline in conventional forces, as the atomic bomb  was considered the weapon of the future.  Outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, however,  brought with it the need for a massive buildup of conventional American forces and equipment. When US manufacturers balked at retooling for war, President Harry Truman made a momentous decision that would impact the U.S. for the rest of history – with passage of the Defense Production Act of 1950,  he created the defense industry. 

Once the defense industry became a permanent form of business in the  United States, the Republican attitude to military spending changed. From that point on, the pro-corporation Republican Party would push as much money as possible to the defense contractors. 

But spending on the defense industry doesn’t necessarily equate to making America strong.  Massive defense spending during the Reagan administration did little more than triple our national debt and turn the U.S. from a creditor nation to a debtor nation.  With defense manufacturers overcharging  million of dollars for such follies as “crash-proof” coffee makers and the so-called “Star Wars” missile defense system, there was literally little money left for maintenance. 

As a result, some older Navy ships were unable to leave port due to mechanical breakdowns. Entire squadrons of aircraft reportedly were cannibalized for spare parts. At the time, I served in a Navy reserve ground combat unit that, despite being part of the country’s Rapid Response Force, had no weapons; Reagan had sent them to El Salvador and there was no money to  buy replacements. 

Defense from Terrorists 

In 1999, the Clinton administration received a single warning of a pending Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. President Bill Clinton immediately placed the country’s entire law enforcement apparatus on alert. As a result, the so-called Millennium Plot was thwarted when the intended bomber was caught trying to cross into the U.S. from Canada. 

In 2001, the Bush administration received some 40 separate warnings from American and foreign intelligence agencies that Al Qaeda was planning an imminent attack. George Bush ignored all of them.  On September 11, more than 2,000 Americans paid the price for Bush’s national security incompetence. 

Less than two years later, in March of 2002, Bush told reporters he was no longer concerned with finding the organizer of that attack, Osama Bin Laden. Bush eventually closed down the CIA office dedicated to tracking and capturing or killing Bin Laden. Two useless and unnecessary wars later, the Al Qaeda mastermind was still at large when Bush left office in 2008. 

It would be left to Bush’s Democratic successor, Barack Obama, to reopen the search for Bin Laden and launch the covert operation that finally made him pay for his treachery. 

So much for Republican prowess on national security.

 


Thursday, June 7, 2012

Jesus Hates Us, This I Know...

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:24

 Apparently, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker credits God in his war on the working class in his state. While running for governor, Walker did what all Republicans do these days – he announced he is a Christian. In an interview with a so-called Christian broadcasting station, Walker said God told him to make many of the decisions in his life. One of those decisions was leaving college to take a job with IBM. I never knew God ran an employment service. More likely, Walker is using God to bury the fact the governor was a sub-average student who became a college drop out.

 The implication of Walker’s testament is that everything he’s doing in Wisconsin – handing out $140 million in tax cuts for wealthy corporations, then claiming the state is facing bankruptcy; denying state workers their bargaining rights; taking millions of dollars away from the public school system to finance vouchers for private schools for the rich – all this, he says, God and Jesus told him to do.

 


The only prophets these self-styled disciples of Christ follow are the ones preceded by dollar signs. In my opinion, they epitomize those Jesus accused of turning places of worship into “dens of thieves.”

 


 

It amazes me how many Republicans claim God talks directly to them. How does he it do it? Does he call them collect? Does he send them videos like Osama Bin Laden? In Walker’s case, how does he know he’s really talking to God and not getting punk’d by another liberal blogger?

Moreover, how does a man who claims to be a follower of Christ’s teachings of love, charity, tolerance and forgiveness reconcile his actions of taking money from the poor and working class citizens of his state and giving it to its richest residents?

 Certainly, it helps if you are a cynical sociopath. No doubt that’s the case with Newt Gingrich, the disgraced former Republican House leader who, with a straight face, recently told a Christian news show that his love of country caused him to work so hard it destroyed two of his three marriages. In Gingrich’s mind his habitual womanizing had nothing do with those failed marriages, or with his forced resignation from Congress.

But what if Walker actually believes he is doing God’s work?

We have become a nation in which rich people who got rich by lying, stealing and cheating, are getting elected to leadership positions in state and federal government. Walker’s own reputation as a corrupt county administrator was so bad he lost the county he used to run. Rick Scott, the new governor of Florida, was CEO of the health care corporation convicted of the largest Medicare fraud in U.S. history. U.S. Rep. Darryl Issa, the California congressman now planning a series of investigations into what he claims are crimes committed by the Obama administration, has an arm’s-length rap sheet including grand theft auto and arson for profit.

Jesus Loves the  Rich

How do these men face the electorate when they should be hanging their heads in shame? How do they call themselves men of God and followers of Jesus Christ’s teachings? I’ll tell you how. Because they know something you and I don’t: They know Jesus hates us. He hates us because we’re not rich.

One of the fastest growing sects of Christianity in this country is called the Gospel of Prosperity. Dating back to the 1930s – during the Republican-caused Great Depression – the Gospel of Prosperity believes the Bible got it wrong. Christ wasn’t sent by God to minister to the poor and downtrodden. He was sent to aid the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Under this form of Christian belief, the rich have no problem getting through the Gates of Heaven. It is the poor and middle class who will have a harder time getting through the Pearly Gates than a camel has getting through a needle’s eye. You can do whatever you need to do to become rich – lie, cheat, steal – because you are doing God’s work. Who could argue with that kind of missionary work? But it also involves destroying the lives of other people.

If you think this is just hype, consider this: dozens of conservative members of Congress – both Republicans and Democrats – live nearly rent-free in a Washington, DC condominium project owned by The Family. If you’ve followed the sexual scandals of Sen. John  Ensign and South Carolina  Gov. Mark Sanford, you’ve heard of The Family. Also known as the Fellowship, the Family has been criticized by mainstream Christian churches as being a cult-like congregation of the rich and elite that caters to their appetite for power and wealth.

Gospel of Prosperity

The best known apostle of the Gospel of Prosperity is Oral Roberts, the televangelist who in 1987 invoked his viewers to send him $8 million or he would be called to Heaven by God. I never understood why a man of religion would fear being called to meet his Maker. But apparently, Roberts’ viewers felt compelled to save him from his just reward by sending him their life savings. Roberts was spared, temporarily. He died in 2009 in an exclusive enclave of Newport Beach, California, after he was forced to sale off his homes in Palm Springs and Beverly Hills, as well as three of his Mercedes. 

Another who preaches the prosperity gospel is TV cleric Pat Robertson, who has financed his lavish lifestyle with his viewers’ donations to his church and its shady disaster relief programs. Robertson’s belief that God wants him to find a gold mine led the televangelist to make a business deal with Liberia’s dictator Charles Taylor to look for gold in that African country.

Now deposed, Taylor is standing trial before an international criminal court for crimes against humanity involving his attacks on neighboring Sierra Leon, motivated by Taylor’s coveting of that country’s mineral riches. Robertson, who claimed Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake were God’s vengeance (apparently because the victims were poor), continues to defend Taylor to this day.

You can also count George W. Bush in this category, too. When Bush, whose family business – the Carlyle Group – reaped a fortune from the war in Iraq, said he was a Christian, the Gospel of Prosperity was the Christianity he was referring to.

The only prophets these self-styled disciples of Christ follow are the ones preceded by dollar signs. In my opinion, they epitomize those Jesus accused of turning places of worship into “dens of thieves.”

With such a belief system, one can commit any reprehensible, even criminal, act to gain power and wealth – lie, steal, betray, even start a war – because you’re doing God’s will. With this corrupt moral compass, you can commit any sin; as long as you say you accept Jesus into your heart, you’ll be forgiven. To me, this gospel’s idea of Christ smells more like the Antichrist. In the meantime, the rest of us are just so much flotsam left in the wake of God’s miraculous work.

I am certain Gov. Walker considers himself a good Christian as well as a patriot. But then history is filled with evil men who cloaked themselves in patriotism and Christ. “When fascism comes to America,” Sinclair Lewis prophesized in 1935, “it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” If there is a hell, then I believe there is special place there for Gov. Walker and his phony “Christians.” They, in turn, would consider me a heretic for suggesting God and Jesus were interested in such heathens as the unwashed masses. So be it. I will remain, as Jackson Browne wrote, “a heathen and a pagan on the side of the Rebel Jesus.”

 

 


Wednesday, June 6, 2012

The Myth of Corporate Leadership

I cringe every time someone says government should be run like a business. A former business journalist, I have had the opportunity to study the inner workings of Corporate America, and I know the one secret that businessmen and conservative politicians would rather you not know: Most American businesses fail. They fail due to poor leadership at the top.

Yet only two years after Wall Street led the country into the worst economic collapse since the Great Recession, California voters seriously considered electing two former CEOs – Ebay’s Meg Whitman and Hewlett Packard’s Carly Fiorina – to the governorship and the U.S. Senate. Not yet four years after the economic collapse, U.S. voters are considering electing another CEO, Mitt Romney, to the White House. That would only recreate the same mistake voters made 12 years ago with the election of George W. Bush as president.
 
Bush, after all, took great pride in calling himself the “CEO president.” He proudly referred to his days as chief executive officer of an oil drilling company called Abusto, Spanish for “bush.” What he never mentioned was that Abusto – as well as every other business Bush was involved with – went bust.
 
Nor was he the only failed CEO in his administration. As chief executive officer of Halliburton, Dick Cheney drove the oil drilling equipment giant to the brink of bankruptcy. He saved Halliburton only by appointing himself Bush’s vice-president and steering billions of dollars of government contracts to the company – at great cost to the taxpayer.
 
The myth of corporate leadership – that business executives could run government better than politicians – is just that, a myth, a fable that makes good bedtime reading for Ayn Rand fans but has little basis in reality.

Failed Corporate Leadership
 
In his book, “Built to Fail,” business author Jonathan I. Klein concludes “failure claims an overwhelming majority of businesses within five years [of start up] and almost all businesses within ten years.”  Despite claims of conservatives that most business failures stem from government interference, Klein concludes that these failures are rooted directly in the internal leadership of the failed companies.
 
Bush and Cheney, in fact, are splendid examples of  the modern CEO. Gone are the Horatio Alger days when a young man worked his way up from the mail room to the board room. Most CEOs today land in the big office with the help of their rich father (like Bush) or with the help of  personal publicists who make sure their clients get the credit for anything that goes right, and deflect the blame for anything that goes wrong.
 
As a result, CEOs often begin to think they can do no wrong.  By believing themselves infallible, CEOs turn a deaf ear to nay Sayers or any other harbingers of reality who might disagree with them. In his book, “Why Smart Executives Fail,” Sidney Finklestein points to this  “executive mindset” as well as  “protective mechanisms and delusional attitudes” as the cause for the growing number of corporate leadership failures.
 
Klein came to similar conclusions. The genesis of such failures, he says, came not from without but from within the corporation, and “included inappropriate motives for entrepreneurship, disdain for procedure, underestimation of resource needs, insensitivity to the environment, infatuation with the product, and unrealistic projections of the future.” In other words, poor judgment.
 
Bush showed this quality before Sept. 11, 2001, when he refused to listen to more than 40 separate warnings of an impending attack from Al Qaida – including two personal phone calls from the presidents of France and Russia. He showed it again when he refused to accept intelligence reports that refuted his belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and was harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

Short-Sighted Leadership
 
Governing requires a long-term view of the needs of the population and the nation. American business executives, however, are notoriously short-sighted. In the American business world, everything revolves around the quarterly profit statement. Bonuses are based on the degree of profit seen in each three-month business cycle. This produces extreme myopia. Decisions are made to close plants, layoff workers, outsource jobs, etc., based entirely on how it will look on the next balance sheet. As a result, American businesses tend to suffer in the long run.
 
The Bush administration’s entire war strategy showed this kind of short-sightedness. When the United Nations refused the administration’s call for an immediate invasion of Iraq, the president did what too many CEOs would do: He plunged ahead without any plans for the long-term occupation or rebuilding of Iraq. His infamous landing aboard an aircraft carrier to announce “Mission Accomplished,” got him what he wanted – a jump in the polls – but his failure to plan ahead left our troops and the Iraqis in an ever bloodier quagmire.
 
Similar corporate leadership failures are leading to a volatile business environment. In the last decade, CEO turnover in the United States jumped from around 10 percent during the 1990s to nearly 50 percent, according to Chief Executive magazine. Not all those turnovers were firings, of course, but it shows a terrible instability in today’s corporate leadership.
 
Both Fiorina and Whitman were part of that volatility. Like Bush, both candidates boast of their CEO experience, yet neither candidate left behind a legacy that would promote confidence in their leadership skills. Fiorina, after all, was fired by HP’s board in 2005 because they lacked confidence in her abilities. Whitman resigned in 2008 amid demands from shareholders she be fired for driving the company stock value into the ground. Since her departure, most of Whitman’s business decisions at eBay have been reversed by her successor.
 
CEO candidates invariably claim they know how to create jobs. Unfortunately for  American workers, their legacies prove otherwise. Despite his vaunted “trickle down” tax cuts, CEO President Bush reigned over the worst U.S. job growth since WWII – and that was before his policies tanked the economy in late 2008, resulting  the loss of 700,000 U.S. jobs.
 
Fiorina personally helped Bush’s legacy by cutting nearly 30,000 U.S. jobs at HP and shipping thousands of them overseas  in an attempt to make up for massive financial losses at HP caused by her ill-conceived acquisition of computer maker Compaq. Whitman helped as well, outsourcing 40 percent of eBay’s workforce to other countries. Her corporate leadership failures also resulted in 1,000 eBay workers losing their jobs.  Despite their failure, both Fiorina and Whitman left their posts with expensive golden parachutes.

Romney, born rich, made himself richer at Bain Capital by buying up perfectly good American companies, firing their employees, and shipping the jobs overseas. Of course, that tactic didn't always work: twice while Romney was CEO of Bain, the company nearly went insolvent and Romney had to arrange for federal bailouts amounting to tens of millions of dollars.
 
This is one of the biggest failures in corporate leadership. Too often the CEO’s solution for every problem is handing out pink slips, and making their remaining employees work harder and longer. As a result, American workers put in longer hours than their European counterparts (50 to 60 hours compared to 30 to 40 hours in Europe) with less time off (one to two weeks of vacation compared to four to six weeks for Europeans). This, business leaders tell us, makes America more productive. Coincidentally, it also makes CEOs richer.
 
The last place you want to see this sort of  “do more with less” CEO mentality is in government, where doing more with less usually means fewer police, prosecutors, firefighters, paramedics – the very government workers we need to protect our property and lives. We saw the impact of doing more with less in Iraq and Afghanistan where our armed forces, stripped down by the Bush administration in the months preceding the 9/11 attacks, where stretched to the breaking point.

Corporate Welfare
 
Yet nearly every CEO candidate chants the same mantra: cut taxes and reduce government spending. Their religiosity in this regard would be more convincing if the corporations which spawned these same candidates weren’t the largest recipients of government welfare spending. In 1998, TIME magazine reported the federal government spent $125 billion a year on corporate welfare, and this undoubtedly doubled if not tripled under Bush’s CEO presidency.
 
This largess – which typically goes to the richest corporations in the country – includes cash subsidies, free or below-cost government services and products, tax-payer subsidized loans to foreign countries to buy U.S. goods, and tax breaks, including credits for outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. This also does not count the subsidies and tax breaks given large corporations by state and local governments.
 
Despite such aid from the government, these corporations and their leaders continue to fail, miserably and repeatedly. Which is what makes me cringed when people say government should be run like business, and when failed CEOs like Mitt Romney want to run our government.