Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Give Populism a Chance
The word “populist” has popped up in the recent European Union referendums as a dirty word, a stand-in for xenophobia and bigotry, the mark of a far right fearful of immigration.
That message comes from the elite. It implies the powerful could never be xenophobic or racist or nationalist, or sexist or classist. And that governments and their leaders are invariably the counter to the forces of darkness.
But populism is really a belief in the sense and virtue of common people. And we need more of it.
French and EU leaders called France’s 55 percent “no” vote on the new EU constitution an unholy alliance of the left and right. Indeed, the extreme right did oppose the charter. But so did 70 percent of farmers and 55 percent of people ages 18 to 25. And workers voted against it overwhelmingly.
Dutch opposition was even higher, 62 percent. For the BBC World News, Michiel van Hulten of the Better Europe foundation identified the reasons: "The message from France and the Netherlands is that they are unhappy with the way Europe is being built. People are unhappy with the fact that Europe is a project of the elite, not the ordinary people.”
Great Britain quickly shelved its own EU referendum following the French and Dutch votes.
Do you wonder what would happen if the United States had the courage to chance a popular vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or now the Central American Free Trade Agreement?
Our leaders, both Republican and Democratic, push all these pacts. They talk of modernization and removing archaic trade barriers. They have an almost religious faith that this kind of free-market economics floats all boats, that there is unlimited potential for wealth creation, and that world trade, if freed from regulation, will somehow overcome the problem of finite natural resources.
Truth is, these deals painted as win-win are big wins for a few, small wins for a few more and big losses for many people, rural communities and to the natural resource base on which our wealth is built. They aim to lower the cost of those resources and the cost of labor. They are a way to override conservationist restraint, and to push the environmental and social costs of business onto society and the natural world.
Before the French and Dutch elections, I had hoped the EU, along with India and China, would challenge U.S.-led ordering of the world’s political economy to suit our own elites. Granted, international financial interests are hardly attached to countries anymore. They’re equal opportunity exploiters. Still, I hoped that another big economy — a united Europe — and more competition might give a marginally better deal to the farmers, laborers and rural communities of the world.
Middle-class French and Dutch voters saw through this. They understood that the reordering was not based on their interests.
U.S. leaders might take this as a lesson to never allow such a vote on how the world will be structured — much better to incite a choice of politicians based on their views of gay marriage and what to do about a dying woman. By focusing our political debate on issues like these, our leaders divert voters from matters of greater import, such as the war in Iraq.
There was a referendum of sorts in the Clinton administration’s final days. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman let hog producers decide whether to keep the checkoff for hog promotion. The checkoff is a toll on every hog sold and helps fund hog producer associations. Many felt the money was being misused to promote big operations and run family farms out of business. So they voted to discontinue the checkoff, and Glickman obeyed.
But a new agriculture secretary, Ann Veneman, came with the Bush administration and reinstated the checkoff. No discussion. No embarrassment. No sense of right or wrong. No symbolic bow to democracy. Just exercise of power.
I think we need more referendums, and ones that stick. I think voters need a more direct voice. I think our democracy is becoming farcical, skewed by money, lobbyists and a fuzziness that lets politicians hide behind inflammatory issues to get elected, and then screw their constituents. I think we need a change.
DAN NAGENGAST is a Lawrence, Kan., farmer and executive director of the Kansas Rural Center.