Babcockery

I'm struck by the frequently shallow thinking of those who post spontaneous, often vitriolic comments to on-line news stories.

Could there be a hip-shot pathology at work?

For reasons you will learn in a moment, I call the phenomenon "Babcockery."

What prompts my sharing this thought is a near-instantaneous response to an on-line Oregonian story involving me. The first (and so far, only) comment on the story labels me a "socialist."

I can live with that, however untrue — or true, but it does make me curious about the mind set of my accuser.

The story that prompted the "socialist" charge is by Oregonian stringer Rebecca Koffman. The reporting was posted just an hour ago and immediately drew the "socialist" accusation from one "Babcock."

The story is about a petition drive intended to discourage Chase Bank from opening another branch in Hillsdale. I am correctly cited and quoted as the drive's organizer. You can read Koffman's story HERE. Babcock's comment is at the bottom of it.

By the way, if you live in or near near Hillsdale, you can sign the petition at the new Tré Bone pet supply around the corner from the Post Office and next to the Chinese restaurant.

Back to "Babcock" and "Babcockery".....

Apparently opposing JPMorganChase Bank, certainly a capitalistic icon (recently saved by the American taxpayer) makes me a "socialist."

The term "socialism" is notoriously hard to pin down. HERE is Wikipedia's attempt, which comes with a host of caveats. I'm certain some part of the term fits me. And probably you. I dare say that a sizable portion of "Babcock" is socialistic. Did he go to public school? Does he drive on the public streets? Is he protected by the police? By our military?

I also happen to be a capitalist in that I publish a little on-line newspaper. It is modestly supported by my fellow capitalistic Hillsdale sponsors and by community good will. In my semi-retirement, I volunteer my time to it and give most of the money it generates back to the community. No government money comes in the door. You can see The Hillsdale News HERE.

I'll add that some of my dearest colleagues are, well, capitalists. I venture that most who have signed the dread "socialistic" petition are too.

So where does that leave the likes of "Babcock"? Consider the "socialistic" military.

As I look around at our economy for signs of socialism, the one that jumps out at me is our military-industrial complex. Strangely the Babcocks of the world give the military and defense contractors a free pass.

Why don't they attach dashed-off comments to stories about defense contracts? "Clearly Boeing is run by socialists." "The joint chiefs of staff are all socialists." "If you enlist in the armed forces, you are an obvious socialist."

I have no explanation for Babcockery. I hope a "Babcock" will read this and explain. I also hope that my new term for this behavior enters the language.

What is "Babcockery"? Definition: "Reactionary, ill-considered, accusatory (and frequently ad hominem) on-line responses to news or opinion."

Sound-bite socialism and other political follies

If American politics ever could get beyond sound bites, smears and gotchas, we might actually learn something.

The good news is that Prof. Barack Obama may, just may, be on the verge of clearing the air and opening the discussion.

John McCain and his campaign are another story.

McCain’s accusing Barack Obama of “spreading the wealth” is a case in point. Of course the "wealth" of the working and middle classes (it's called "labor") have been spread to the rich since the dawn of capitalism.

Look no farther than Cindy McCain, who inherited her millions from her father’s beer distribution company, which, in turn, was made profitable by its hundreds of truck drivers, mechanics, warehouse workers and accountants.

They worked; she profited and spread that profit to John.

John McCain clearly doesn’t have a problem with spreading the wealth. His problem is with spreading it equitably and fairly.

Which brings us to the McCain campaign’s charge that Obama is a socialist.

Here is part of the Wikipedia definition of socialism:

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.

Sound familiar? The definition continues:

All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

For most Europeans, this, and the guarantee of certain state-provided services such as health care, are givens. Frankly, recalling Christ's admonition to the rich man, I don't see how it is possible to be a true Christian without being a socialist. Which may be why Europe developed "Christian Socialist" parties. Shocking!

I am particularly fond of line from George Orwell that American conservatives strangely ignore even as they worship him. Wrote Orwell, “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” (from “Why I write”)

“As I understand it” leaves room for healthy debate. But in America, socialism in any form is considered unworthy of discussion.

Which brings us to George W. Bush, who is nationalizing large chunks of the financial industry. Could it be that our worst president will in the dying days of his administration turn out to be a socialist? He clearly is willing to use socialist tools as part of his effort to save the wreck wrought by American capitalism.

And yet we don’t hear the McCain campaign calling the Bush Administration’s policies socialistic.

Wonder why….

Maybe it’s because McCain voted to support the socialistic bail-out. Or maybe it’s because McCain values the other non-socialistic parts of the Bush program: the tax cuts for the rich, the cronyism on behalf of Enron and Halliburton and Big Oil, the exporting of American jobs, the union busting, the efforts to privatize Social Security, and the resistance to truly reform health care.

Why can’t we delve into such matters? Why is political discourse here so slap dash and innuendo laden? Why is it that a word like “socialism” is used pejoratively and so little understood? Why can’t we explore the ways that wealth has been spread in one direction, from the assembly line to the executive suite with its stock options, seven- and eight-digit salaries and golden parachutes?

Is the problem with the corporate-owned media as I’ve suggested? Is it in our educational system? Is it in political pandering and timidity? Or is it a part of American isolationism, exceptionalism and arrogance?

When can we begin to talk openly and honestly about ideas well worth exploring?

Next Wednesday?

An Orwellian Writer's Almanac tribute

I have buried in my stack of well-worn t-shirts, one I rarely wear. I displays a large caricature of a gaunt George Orwell. A cigarette droops from his lips, and a giant depiction of Big Brother looms behind him.

For some reason my hand went to it today, and I put it on even though it made me look slightly cartoonish. I’m wearing it now and will for the rest of the day, for reasons that follow....

Greeting the day with Orwell's image on my chest, I did my pre-Cheerios-and-coffee e-mail check largely to read the daily “Writer’s Almanac” from Garrison Keillor. Yes, you can have the written script of the NPR “Writer’s Almanac” e-mailed to you. I recommend it, though, as you will see, it needs to be read skeptically.

After offering the customary poem, the almanac launched into it’s main item:

“It's the birthday of the man who wrote Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949), George Orwell, born Eric Blair ….”

How serendipitous.

I’m noting in my PDA that June 25th is Orwell/Blair’s birthday. The note will include a reminder to wear the Orwell t-shirt to mark the occasion.

Keillor’s short sketch couldn’t possibly have done justice to Orwell’s sprawling, heroic life, although the item included a unfamiliar (to me at least) anecdote or two.

Sadly, Keillor also did Orwell an Orwellian injustice when he distorted a quote from Orwell’s famous essay, “Why I write.”

Here’s the quote as presented:

"Every line of serious work that I have written [since the Spanish Civil War] has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism."

And that’s where Keillor ended it, with a period. At the very least he should have inserted ellipses because here is the rest of the sentence:

“…against totalitarianism, and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” (the emphasis is Orwell’s)

Yes, Orwell was a democratic socialist, and yes, my fellow patriotic Americans, democracy and socialism can be compatible. The question is, in light of our current predicament: Are democracy and capitalism compatible, if capitalism is indeed what our economy is? Or does capitalism simply buy off democracy?

If you read Orwell’s works and learn more about his life, you’ll understand why he was a democratic socialist.

Keillor would do well to do so.

Meanwhile, Happy Birthday, George.