Why Do They Hate Us?:
For me, as I suspect for most Americans, it is an irritant to realize just how widespread and growing is this feeling of hostility toward America. When global polls show the popularity of Bin Laden to be higher than George Bush it is startling. It didn't seem to be that way right after 9/11. When in most countries Americans cannot safely wander off clearly demarcated resort areas, one begins to realize just how serious is this hostility of 'common folk' in so many countries toward Americans. Then again, there are growing areas in our own country where most of us would be scared to death if we accidently got lost driving.
The first reaction, I think for most of us, is this: "well, if that is the way they feel, we should stop all this foreign aid we send abroad". I mean, where would they be without us? We do send more non military foreign aid than any other country. On the other hand, on a per capita basis, we spend less money on non military foreign aid than almost any other industrialized nation. But perhaps it is a mistake to quibble over who sends how much money where. The problem is probably not that simple. Even in our own country we throw at least a good amount of money at the least amongst us, and it seems the size of the problems and the hostility just gets worse. I probably am one of the few who feel very uncomfortable about the growing size of our disenfranchised population, a population that is also heavily armed. Sometimes I fear we have become an Iraq waiting to happen, that the protective wall between the affluent and the destitute is about as protective as the levies were in New Orleans. I know in my neighborhood the number of Uzi's per square mile dwarfs the number of Uzi's in poorer neighborhoods. History has shown the veneer of civilized behavior is never very thick, and that the more complicated and top heavy the power in any great civilization, the greater and faster the fall. There does not seem to be any real evidence any TYPE of government can sustain itself when the disparity between the rich and poor passes a certain level. There does not seem to be any real evidence any TYPE of 'empire' can sustain itself when the attempt to control more distant lands is overreached. Every civilized empire has fallen for the above two reasons far more so than any type of governing system. When George Bush says "Democracy is the answer" I doubt he is any more brilliant here than with any of his other dumb ass cliches. One thing for sure: George Bush is not the answer. The question is whether, after another 17 months of George's "bring 'em on" arrogant attacks on the ever growing number of dissidents and destitute across the globe---whether the damage will be reversible. Just where the point of no return is to the use of violence to solve conflicts is a legitimate question.
But the bigger questions remains, "why do they hate us"? Up to some point past World War II America was the beacon, the hope, the shining example for all those wanting a better life for themselves across the globe. Americans could go most anyplace on the globe and feel the universal friendship. Most everyone wanted their country to be like America, the land of the free, the land of opportunity, the melting pot of the world. Recent global polls show America is now the most feared nation and the country most resented. Is this just simple jealousy? Clearly, if given the chance, most would still elect to live here not where they live now. Interesting. It seems unusual for people to elect to be in a country they fear and resent. I have thought about this and the only answer seems to be the ever growing tension between the have's and the have not's across the globe. Most, I guess, would rather be a Have in their native land, but seeing that as highly unlikely, would prefer to be a Have in America.
While the above may reflect reality, it doesn't really explain all the hostility and resentment. I wonder what percentage of those who get here, one way or another, outside of those with professional skills in short supply in America, ever really manage to become one of the Have's. Myself, given a choice, I would rather hire a native born American. At least for a decent paying job, not one of the slave labor 'guest worker' labor intensive get it done cheap endeavors. Then, in one of my more mellow moments, a Lincolnesque type insight, I wonder why we should be using slave labor under any disguise?
In the days of slavery the slave owners lived in constant fear the slaves would rebel. The fear was real, despite all the rhetoric depicting slavery as the best system in the best interests of the slaves and besides---without the owners whatever meager food and shelter they had would be gone. Without the generosity of the slave owners the slaves would have nothing. You simply don't bite the hand that feeds you. But the rhetoric was hollow, self serving, and unethical. With the exception of a favored few slaves with unusual privileges, the vast majority despised their lot in life and those who imposed on them such a life.
It is trite, but not without merit that the more things change the more things stay the same. Slavery of course is no longer legal in this country, but 'guest workers' or illegal workers or whatever other term used, are in reality a kind of slave class labor. When American corporations move their operations overseas it is for one of two reasons or both----to gain access to slave labor or escape taxation. We can pretend otherwise but slavery is alive, well, and growing across the globe. Even in this country the purchasing power of the minimum wage is 30% less than 40 years ago. The slave owners today are the giant corporations. They retain their status because they now control our politics, our judicial system, our TV and radio stations, and our sport teams. They own all of these aspects of our society. I don't really know what percent of the nation's wealth the original slave owners held, but the top 1% of our current slave owners own as much of our nation's wealth as the bottom 90% of our population. But hey, I am not in the top 1% and yet am doing quite well so I should quit this bitching. I suppose it natural to conclude if one is doing well, then all is well, and those not doing well could do well if they just would show some initiative. Furthermore, if those not doing so well think they can mount some sort of effective revolution to topple the money lenders in the corporate temples, well they better realize the vast array of military weapons ready to put down any kind of rebellion anywhere on the globe. This is law and order 101. He who has the biggest and better weapons wins the war. Ask the former American slaves and the American Indians. John Wayne may be dead but George Bush lives. 'Bring 'em on".
The truth really is that the more things change the more things change. There are two flaws in the above. First, once the disparity between the affluent and the poor passes a certain point, every such civilization in history collapsed and collapsed rather rapidly. That kind of disparity is not sustainable. If ethical or religious principles are not strong enough to stop such disparity, the civilization collapses under it's own weight of injustice. Second, the vast array of military weapons at our disposal, are increasingly less and less of any use. Our military weapons advantage in Iraq must be something on the level of 100 to 1. Yet we are losing, the dead body counts not withstanding. Our military weapons advantage in Vietnam was similar. We easily won the killing contest but lost the war. The Russians had a similar military advantage in Afghanistan but they too killed the most but lost the war.
One might legitimately ask, "well, why then didn't the former American slaves effectively rebel and free themselves?". The answer is simple. Most couldn't read, they had no way to communicate with each other, and their skin color made them stand out in any gathering. None of that exists in the current 'slave' rebellion. Today's slaves have the internet, they often are well educated, and they blend in with any crowd. The troops of the modern corporate 'slave owners' can do little besides parade around, toss bombs into suspected enclaves of slaves (now known as rebels or terrorists), and wait to be picked off by road bombs, snipers, or suicide bombers. If all this seems to paint the rebels or terrorists in some sort of noble light, such is not the reality. When the senseless killing on both sides commences, thugs take over in the chaos. Law and order collapses. It becomes gangsterism gone wild and unchecked. The educated, the affluent, the more reasonable elements of the disrupted society have little choice but to flee. Many will be killed in the attempt to flee. In most cases they have no where to flee. Distant from the chaos there is endless babble about democracy, religion, freedom fighters, terrorists----but all such babble becomes totally irrelevant to the reality of the situation.
Three questions remain. Are there really that many hopelessly trapped destitute 'slaves' or landless, homeless, unemployed humanesque scavengers across our globe and perhaps amassing in our own country? And if so, why is their anger directed towards us? In most cases we are so far away. Finally, are they all or mostly members of al Qaida and if so, why and what is the goal of al Qaida anyway?
Perhaps it all starts with an observation by Karl Polanyi: "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment......would result in the demolition of society." To this might be added the impact of allowing technology to permeate every aspect of our lives. Let's be real here, a purely market economy is a predatory economy. When the Rockefellers, Vanderbuilts, and other assorted corporate barrons amassed huge fortunes back in the late 1800's the people still controlled our politics, and hefty estate taxes with no loop holes were passed which forced most of their amassed fortune, upon their death, back into the society from which it came. This no longer happens, in part because the modern day corporate barrons own our political process by essentially financing them and controlling media outlets. We virtually have a corpocracy now, not a democracy. This happened because the average American was sold the idea that any kind of capital controls were contrary to individual liberty, a stifling of the enterprising spirit which makes America great. Really? This is like arguing disciplining a child destroys his spirit and limits his potential. Whatever the child wants he should have and have as much as he wants as long as he wants however he wants it. If someone devised a scheme whereby the charges to all bank accounts could be set so that one person reaped millions of dollars profit, people would demand the culprit be prosecuted for bilking the public. Well, nice a guy as Gates may well be, he still bilked the public, not for millions of dollars, but for billions. Professional sport owners do the same thing.
"So what", one might contest, a lot of us are doing quite well thank you. Maybe so---but others aren't, and we too are likely to pay the piper quite soon. From 1973 to 2000 the average income of the bottom 90% of American taxpayers fell by 7%, while the income of the top 1% rose 148%. These huge profits have to come from somewhere and it is clear from where they come. Between 1990 and 2000 the compensation to the CEO of Citicorp (now Citigroup) grew 12,444%. At the same time these bountiful blessings fell on the top 1%, the percent of people living below the poverty line rose to 15%, 2 million people are now in jail, the highest per capita incarceration in the world, the homeless population jumped 13%. In New York City almost 30,000 homeless sleep in city shelters every night. To this situation the growing conservative movement in our country demands that we cut the support to the bottom tier of society and give some more tax cuts to the wealthy. As long as the middle class gets some kind of tax cut, however meager, it becomes ok to give a bigger tax break to the wealthy. It is like we need strike a deal with our corpocracy managers---a deal which kind of says, "ok, give yourselves mountains of money as long as you give me a little". Idiot's payola.
"Enough" you say, what does this have to do with why others across the globe increasingly hate us? The connection is this: In this relatively new global economy corpocracy rules and controls. The form of government is substantially unimportant. Money is King. Materialism is the religion. Power is the mental state which gives meaning to lives. Those hurt the most in this top heavy game are the weakest. By 1998 the richest 400 people on the planet had as much wealth as the bottom half of the population while 3 billion people lived on less than $2 a day. In the corporate driven global economy more than 100 countries have suffered a per capita income that is lower today than it was 15 years ago, 1.6 billion people live in worse conditions than they did in the early 80's. One sixth of the world's population now live in slums. Most countries no longer are in control of their own destiny. Corpocracy now rules the world and America not only drives this corpocracy but enforces the implementations and protects the interests of the well heeled corporate players. Justice has become passe, the accumulation of wealth becomes the scale by which actions are driven, and freedom for more and more people becomes another word for nothing left to lose.
When the disenfranchised destitute across the globe look to place the blame for their predicament, they increasingly have figured out who is the major force behind all this. Often it is near impossible to hold their own government accountable because their own government is often propped up and guarded by American military bases and forces within their own country, and if their country is not awash in the amenities which provide a quality of life, it is awash in guns supplied by America. These are the billions across the globe with increasingly less to lose---often nothing left to lose. The root cause is overpopulation coupled with a technology which depends less and less on human labor. It is the American protected global corpocracy which sustains the ever widening disparity between the affluent and the poor.
There are essentially 3 factors which will lead to chaos and the destruction of civilization as many of us now live it: Irresponsible human reproduction; the innability of Lincoln's 'common man' to control the corpocracy; the ability now for dissidents across the globe to easily communicate amongst themselves and blow up the human and material infrastructure of the 'privileged' recipients of corpocracy. It will not work to call these dissidents 'terrorists', insist they are few in number, or pretend there is any real protection from terrorist attacks. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are vivid pictures of the limitations of any American ability to any longer control distant countries. Even the most conservative supporters of American control over the destinies of others will soon tire of providing fodder for terroristic attacks. Sadly, terrorism may well be the cruel answer to overpopulation, and in the process, force local inhabitants across the globe to find a way to tolerate each other and spread the limited resources amongst themselves---or holocausts across the globe are going to spread like forest fires during a drought.
These are the best of times for some and the worst of times for others. The future for any of us has never been so uncertain. What is certain is that Nature bats last and God's created evolutionary process will proceed. In the past for every catastrophic species ending there has always been a new beginning. Fasten your seat belts, this could be a bumpy ride. Be prepared to crash.
