To many
Americans, who remember her mostly for her Cold War rhetoric, Margaret Thatcher
remains something of a hero. In Britain,
however, her legacy is rather different.
As Prime Minister, Thatcher pioneered the application of ruthless
ideology to national politics, and prided herself on running a party of
right-wing clones who walked and voted in lock-step to annihilate collective
bargaining rights and deliberately devastate the economies of whole regions of the
United Kingdom. To achieve this
political uniformity, she went on a search and destroy mission in the
Conservative Party to purge it of those members who were not, as she memorably
put it, “One of Us”.
State Senator
Doug LaMalfa, from California Senate District 4 in Northern California, has
been using the “One of Us” phrase on his campaign posters for years. How much it has been responsible for his
political ascendancy it is difficult to say, but LaMalfa, who started as an
Assemblyman, is now a State Senator, and is running to be elected to Congress
to fill the District 1 seat which will be left vacant by out-going Congressman
Wally Herger. He stands a fair chance of
winning, too, having been anointed by Herger in a nauseatingly insulting
display of the entitlement which characterises the approach of the Republican
Party to what it seems to regard as its personal fiefdom in the north.
Northern
Californian politics (it might come as news to many in other parts of the state
that there are people living north of Sacramento, but yes, it is true) have
been long dominated by the Republican Party.
We have precious little to show for it, having remained an economic and
social backwater, plagued by high unemployment and a lack of investment, but we
continue to re-elect the right-wing blowhards bred by the Republican Party in
this part of the state. LaMalfa is the
latest such buffoonish, Stetson-wearing culture warrior to pop up and mercenarily
trade on a sense of frustration while in actuality entrenching the region’s marginality.
From the horse’s mouth: “The
First district is vast and unique. I consider it the real California. A place
where family values, hard work and individual responsibility are still the
norm. These are not the values of Washington, D.C., but they should be”. Any time someone says the “real California” or the “real America”, and starts pretending
that only a small subset of the community treasures real values, you know they haven’t a philosophical leg to stand
on. LaMalfa and the other economic Ayatollah
running for Herger’s seat, Sam Aanestad, are embracing the same argument about
exceptionalism that their party has used to damage the country so badly at the
national level.
What is the
implication of LaMalfa’s deliberately divisive language combined with his
embrace of the Republican Party’s lunatic fundamentalism? That North State residents have somehow
different needs to people living in the rest of the state. Now it’s true that demographically and
culturally the North State is different from other parts of California (in the
sense that most parts of the state differ in some respect from one another). But the fact remains that we all have the same
basic needs. So LaMalfa’s attempt to
carve out some bizarrely exclusive cultural and political niche for his ambitions
actually has the effect of negating what we have in common with other
Californians. In the North State, he
tells us, we don’t need universal access to healthcare like people in the rest
of the state. In the North State, we can
do education on the cheap, and we won’t mind when our children suffer the
consequences. In the North State, we don’t
mind eating unsafe food, drinking contaminated water, and breathing polluted air. In the North State, one of the most beautiful
regions in California, we don’t need accessible, affordable public recreational
areas. In the North State, we don’t need
collective bargaining rights.
LaMalfa, one of
whose biggest claims to fame is his authorship of a bill to protect people’s
guns in the event of a national disaster (an odd priority given that he shows
no such solicitousness of people’s welfare in the midst of our man-made
economic disaster) is a member of an openly corrupt political party which is in
total thrall to corporate interests. People
here in Zambia complain about the ubiquity of petty corruption which operates illicitly
from dark corners, but in the U.S, corruption on a massive scale has been
legalised and is out in the open.
LaMalfa and his party willingly take payments from the oil industry, the
financial sector, large real estate interests, weapons manufacturers, big
agriculture, drug companies, professional polluters, and the spectacularly
wealthy. And then they turn around and
write legislation that exempts these interests from the rules and
responsibilities that bind the rest of us.
They vote against legislation which would ask these interests to take
into account the health, welfare, and economic fortunes of the rest of us in
their corporate behaviour. They give
their full-throated endorsement to an agenda which deliberately advances economic
inequality within our state and our country.
Coincidence? Seems unlikely.
LaMalfa (with Aanestad
and Co) foams at the mouth about Big Bad Government, and then takes massive
subsidies for his rice farms. Like most
of the windbags in his party, he misses the point about government: it’s not
how big it is, but rather what it does and for whom it does things. ‘Government’, under the Republican Party, is
as big as it gets, and is working day and night for the advancement of a vast
corporate welfare system. LaMalfa, as
Assemblyman and Senator, has done his best to shoot down any public investment
which would benefit his constituents in terms of education, healthcare, and energy
and environmental regulation, but is assiduous in backing his party in its
unconscionable working of all the accessible levers of power for the
advancement of corporate interests.
I’m not saying
that Democrats don’t also take the money of interest groups. But the Republicans are in a league of their
own, in that they serve as the flunkeys for more exclusive and wealthier
interests, the welfare of which groups tends to be antithetical to the common
good. And because they can be so
comprehensively bought, they become utterly impervious to changing economic or
social circumstances, immune to the use of reason, and inflexible in their
willingness to ruin their constituents.
To demonstrate
their fealty to the likes of Enron, Blackwater, the Koch Brothers, et al, they take
pledges and swear oaths which pit them—from day one in office—diametrically
against the economic interests of the majority of their constituents. They foreswear the use of reason, the
application of logic, and the willingness to react to changing circumstances to
placate right-wing demagogues. As a
recent letter
in the Record Searchlight noted,
they’re really pledging their allegiance to Grover Norquist and his ilk.
The Searchlight recently wrote about the
good that a University of California campus in Redding would do the North
State, rightly noting that this kind of public investment would be a boon to
the region which could totally transform its prospects. But this is the kind of investment that LaMalfa
would philosophically oppose given the necessity of publicly funding such an
initiative.
Like too many in
his party, LaMalfa remains convinced that his brain resides in his alimentary
canal, and thinks accordingly, with predictable results. He fancies himself a cowboy, but like virtually
every other member of his party, he is really more of a gangster. He and his colleagues have been using
California’s antediluvian supermajority rules to force a regime of brutal cuts
on the state in spite of their minority status, and he would be in similar
company in Congress, where from January 2009 his party deliberately set out to
use the Byzantine Senate rules to scupper the advancement of any progressive
agenda, not allowing the stinging rebukes dealt them by voters in 2006 and 2008
to stand in their way.
The aura of
entitlement which has characterised his run for Congress (to say nothing of its
nastiness),
his anti-public record in the Assembly and Senate, his clownish and destructive
populism, his opposition to collective investment in the common good, and his
anti-tax zealotry make LaMalfa totally unfit to represent northern California
in Congress. He and his party have
embraced the doctrine of “power without responsibility” altogether too
fulsomely for their own good, and their scorched-earth agenda borders on the
nihilistic. He represents an agenda that
should be firmly rejected for the good of our state’s future.
No comments:
Post a Comment