Hmmm, there goes the history

It is astonishing to me to see the extent to which conservatives and Republicans are rushing in to defend, not just the oil drilling industry, but BP in particular.  They want to make sure that the injured residents of the Gulf Coast don't "take advantage" of the huge energy conglomerate.  And they argue that the president, in getting BP to pay the costs of damage it has done, is essentially exercising dictatorial powers.  It is, they claim, the result of a "Chicago-style shakedown," not a fair payment by the corporation for damage that it caused.

(At the moment I am wondering why conservatives didn't think it was unfair to hold Afghanistan and Iraq collectively responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which after all were the work of a relatively small number of men--from one of our allied countries, Saudi Arabia).

Anyhow, this new development rather shows the extent to which the political division in America now has become between (a) the public at large, meaning human beings, or what BP chiefly unfortunately and I imagine unintentionally characterized as "the small people," and (b) the corporate sector (whether finance, health insurance, or energy).  On the one side we have we regular folks, and on the other (b) the spokespersons and multi-millionaires who get rich by taking advantage of us.

I don't like saying that.  I certainly am not a Naderite, and I won't contribute to Greenpeace, even.  But still, the battle lines seem to me to be ever more clearly drawn.

And, I would say, personally, that the "smart money" is betting on a victory for the corporate sector.  Already today I've received "junk" mail extolling BP as a good "buy" on the stock market, since (it argues) the proposed penalties that have driven down the price of BP shares will never really come to pass.  They didn't in the case of the Exxon Valdez accident, so they probably won't here.  That's the claim.

We did have eight years of a presidential administration that was a representative of Big Oil.  Now we have a Supreme Court that believes that corporations are fully the equal of people "citizens" and have a "right" to contribute whatever they want financially to candidates for office, completely uncontrolled.  Freedom of speech is for them, not especially for us.

But in some ways, what really bothers me most is looking at books at Border's, where it is clear that there is a major assault going on, not just against Barack Obama personally, which is a primary focus, but against the "historical narrative" of the U.S.  The line being sold is that America is great because of free enterprise, that its foundation is in economic "liberty," the right to buy and sell.

But the Pilgrims didn't come here because they wanted to set up shops and companies.  (Nor was it because they wanted the "right" to be heavily armed).  Mostly, they were seeking religious freedoms, not particularly toward being tolerant, but in being free from persecution by others.  The grandeur of America has been in creating an enduring government that was, on the one hand, powerful enough to accomplish essential public tasks and, at the same time not so "strong" as to impose itself in such areas as religion, speech, and other essential human rights.  Not, it should be noted, a right to "property."  The Declaration favors "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," not "life, liberty, and property."

And, let's remember too, that while the Declaration of Independence sparked a war with an intrusive foreign colonial power, and its hated taxes, including a tax on tea, the U.S. Constitution was designed to establish a stronger government--specifically a stronger national government--to create a nation and not just a bunch of very loosely-linked separate confederated states.  

Anyhow, there is an ongoing effort to change the Story of America in a manner that benefits corporate elites, Republican power-brokers, conservative wing-nuts, and the extremely wealthy.  (Probably you know that there is no estate tax on those who pass away this year, no matter what their wealth?  None at all).  There is an effort to wipe out the historical truth, just like there is an effort to wipe out evolutionary theory and global warming conclusions.  

Perhaps only those of us who are fairly old will even know the difference.  On the other hand, as others have commented, there always is a place for Hope.

Comments

[Country By Design]

You paint a rather bleak commentary, but I fear you are right.  However, I do still have a thread of hope that smarter minds will prevail and the union and country will be saved. 

[DoctorD42]

NOTE:  I forgot about Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement on this continent, which according to Wikipedia, was founded both for religious freedom and also a desire to make a quick profit from gold-mining.  Obviously, a pecuniary motivation was not absent from the British colonial system--the system that we rebelled against.