Three very disturbing things happened this week, and you probably haven’t heard about them. In the midst of all the news about the crisis in Japan and the violence in the Middle East, some very significant things are happening at home, too. This week, I came across these three stories that, with the exception of the ongoing fight over NPR, I had no idea about and really didn’t believe could happen in America. Our civil liberties and basic dignity are being slowly but surely suppressed, sometimes in ways so small and sinister that it’s easy to overlook.
It sounds melodramatic, but it’s true. Please read these stories. Share them. Talk about them. Contact your senators and tell them you won’t tolerate this. I referred to “nails in the coffin of democracy”, but we aren’t in the ground yet. Not as long as we keep our eyes open to what’s happening, keep talking about it, and refuse, in whatever peaceful ways we can, to give in.
Three Disturbing Nails In the Coffin of Democracy
- House votes to defund NPR. The House voted 228 to 192 on Thursday to eliminate federal funding for National Public Radio. Many in the GOP claim we can’t afford to fund one of our nation’s best, last and most beloved sources of thoughtful news and commentary, not to mention one of the few widely distributed channels not beholden to corporate conglomerates. But really, we can’t afford not to (see information consolidation, an earlier post about how having fewer and fewer vibrant news organizations is really, really bad for democracy).
- White House proposes to make “illegal streaming” of audio or video a felony.This week, the Obama administration proposed changes to U.S. copyright law that would make illegal streaming of audio or video a felony. A felony. The changes would also allow the FBI to wiretap suspected offenders, a move usually reserved for suspected terrorism and other serious crime investigations that allow wiretapping under federal law. Whether you are for or against tighter restrictions on illegal streaming, it’s deeply disturbing that our administration seeks to allow such an extreme invasion of privacy in the name of copyright protection.
- Minnesota Republicans want to outlaw cash-carrying poor people. I couldn’t believe it when I read it, but it’s true. Republicans in Minnesota want to make it illegal for anyone on public assistance to have more than $20 cash on their person for a given month (this is a retreat from their initial proposal, which said no cash at all). It’s a very clear and dangerous manifestation of an ideology that holds our most vulnerable members of society in contempt. It’s also extremely hypocriticial: For a party that claims to be about small government, this proposal is privacy-invading, civil-rights-crushing, nanny-state micromanagement in the extreme.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
The NPR thing I’m on the fence about. The funding from the government is so small it shouldn’t be too tough to make up for. The variety of sources does bother me though. It seems that to be an acceptable source of news in this country you have to be beholden to advertisers, and, IMHO, crippled because of it.
The wiretapping is to me just another manifestation of a boomer controlled culture that can’t adapt fast enough to a tech centered population. An attempt to control something that doesn’t exist in much of a significant way in the real world will inevitably fail, and alienate you from your constituency.
The most disturbing to me is the last story. What is wrong with republicans? Aren’t these the people we should be lifting up and helping? Isn’t this the party thats supposed to be small government, anti-nanny state? The Reps are getting more and more insane the more time goes on.
Frank,
The NPR thing is more a mattter of principal for me. I believe a robust public media is good for democracy because it, by nature, is beholden to the interests of the public rather than profits or corporate conglomerates. Even if the federal defunding wouldn’t kill NPR, it saddens me that it isn’t seen as important to so many of our elected representatives.
You may be right about wiretapping, but I don’t think it should be dismissed lightly. This would amount to an incredible invasion of privacy, and for what? To keep people from streaming some illegal music and videos? Wiretapping should be used as a last resort for suspects of serious crimes, not to protect copyright infringement. The White House proposal comes dangerously close to violating our civil protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
And yes, the Minnesota Republicans’ proposal is just creepy, right? It’s very clear to me that prevailing GOP ideology isn’t really about small government as much as it is about government for a small group of very privileged people.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
I must say that I agree that, while all three stories are bad news, the third stands in a class by itself.
De-funding NPR, while a bad idea, is really just posturing on the Republicans part. I’ve heard them talk about this for at least twenty years. They almost did it in 1994, but got politically out maneuvered and distracted with bigger fish (like de-funding the entire government). I think their leadership realizes it’s not going to get through the senate or the White House. Really, it’s another stupid rallying cry for false populism – right up there with flag burning amendments, and gay marriage bans – to keep their base motivated. It’s the smoke and mirrors of demagoguery as it were.
The second strikes me more as disappointing than anything else. Here’s what I suspect. The White House is floating this idea because they’ve been asked by lobbyists in recording and entertainment to do something to prevent new Limewire, Napster, and Frostwire, types from ever coming into existence while the technology continues to advance AND pirating goes on unabated in China (side note: I’ll bet this got two sentences mentioned between Obama & Hu Jin Tao during the “Steak dinner summit a couple months ago). The White House (and probably several congressional constituencies from all over the political spectrum) have gotten nowhere in figuring out how to handle the situation, and are thus putting this out to see if anyone has any better ideas. In the realm of legislation and political ideas it amounts to a punt. On the other hand, while I think this is a bad idea, I have to admit I don’t have any good ideas to deal with protecting intellectual property in this realm either.
This third idea though… man, that’s positively chilling. In addition to being utterly unconstitutional, it’s morally repugnant, vicious, and actually rather sinister. Even introducing the idea that a group of people would be deprived of the right to something as basic as cash is awful. I’m not sure I quite know how to describe it right now except to make the observation that lots of very bad things tend to ensue when a society begins “debating” whether or not some group within it has a “right” to certain basic operations therein. You can connect the dots.
In the spirit of satire, perhaps we ought to begin a debate as to whether or not the Republican Politicians of Minnesota ought to be allowed to open their big fat mouths in public.
Seth, thanks for the long and thoughtful comment! NPR – agreed. Still not happy about it, though. I’m also very disturbed by the pirating/wire tapping thing, but I hadn’t considered it as a possible political punt. I really hope you’re right. And the third idea… I know. I really couldn’t believe it when I read it. Seems like we all agree that it’s by far the worst piece of news among the three. I will be horrified if Minnesota Republicans get anywhere with it. There’s much more to say, of course. Looking forward to continuing the conversation.
Not sure how the NPR thing relates to Democracy (which btw, the United States was NEVER supposed to be a Democracy. It is a Republic, which it was specifically setup as). NPR being de-funded at the federal level, which it rarely received much money from anyway, merely means it wouldn’t be beholden to Federalist Interests. Of course there are the Corporatist interests, but either way, if it is funded by money and the people that work there eat food, they’ll be manipulated by some interest or another.
The other two bits I agree, are completely screwed up things to happen. These two things seem oddly incompatible with Democrat & Republican Policies, which makes them rather odd that they’re being pushed through. But then of course, I rarely see a functional difference between the Democrats or Republicans, they both want their form of socialist/corporatist leadership, they just have different functional ways to go about getting there.
Hey Adron, I should clarify that I’m using lower-case ‘d’ democracy in the sense of a democratic society. I’m well aware that technically, the United States is a Republic.
As Seth stated in his comment, defunding NPR is largely political posturing and probably wouldn’t have a huge real-world effect, but it’s very telling as to what our civil leaders do and do not value – namely, they don’t value publicly-funded media. This disturbs me deeply for a couple of reasons:
1) A democratic society needs an educated, well-informed public in order to thrive (I know, we’re already pretty lacking here). A crucial part of this includes a robust and diverse free press with a lot of healthy debate and exchange of ideas. If the bulk of information consumed by the public comes from a few well-funded private media conglomerates, we’re going to get “news” that serves the interest of those conglomerates and that discourages inquiry, debate and critical thought in favor of ratings, fear-mongering and, ultimately, profits. It’s no secret that most of our media fits into this category already, making organizations like NPR all the more important as an alternative.
2) While it’s impossible to remove all direct and indirect influences upon any organization whether public or private, publicly-funded media is still not beholden to the same interests as private media. Ideally, it should be beholden to the public interest, since the public pays for it. I know this isn’t always true in practice, but NPR still serves the vital role of providing a free, widely available, widely recognized, easily accessible alternative to the media-industrial complex.
Ultimately, the NPR decision is a reflection of our leaders’ priorities. Republicans in particular (but Democrats are guilty, too) have a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant, uninformed and crippled by fear and demagoguery. It’s a great way to distract people from important issues and get them to vote for policies that hurt them. Manipulating the media is one of the most effective ways to advance that agenda, while a free, robust press is a powerful antidote to propaganda. No wonder they don’t want to fund it – the more ignorant the public is, the more those in power can manipulate their votes and ensure a status quo that enriches the few while disempowering the many. That’s plutocracy, not democracy!
I hope that clarifies where I’m coming from.
As for the other two articles, yeah, completely screwed up. Thanks for taking the time to comment!