America's involvement in Iran: Past and Present

Historically, the United States was been involved in Iran during the Cold War. According to Howard Zinn's A People's History of American Empire after the U.S. Embassy in Iran was seized in 1979 and hostages were taken, shocking evidence was found. Shredded top secret documents "exposed deep U.S. involvement in propping up the Shah's brutal regime." It all started with a period of unrest. From 1912 to 1951, the British worked to maintain control of Iranian oil through the Anglo-Iranian company (A.I.O.C). Mossadegh's election as Prime Minister in 1951 led to a nationalization of the oil industry and a British trade embargo. They were preparing for war but U.S. President Harry Truman demanded they negotiate with the Iranian Prime Minister. Eventually Mr. Truman won the fight, making the British back down. But wasn't the end of the story.

Britain next asked for help in overthrowing Mossadegh and the CIA under Allen Dulles's command created a plan for doing so. The United States started "Operation Ajax" to overthrow the Prime Minister covertly through propaganda, violence and cleverness. However Wasinghton told operatives in Iran to abandon the plot when Mossedegh escaped, but the operatives pressed on. Through pro-Shah rioting, causing chaos on the streets, Mossadegh evacuated his house. General Zahedi, the new Prime Minister rode through the streets on a tank and annouced the overthrow of Mossadegh as the Prime Minister. Days later he turned himself in and declared he was a patriot. He said the only crime he had committed was nationalizing Iran's oil and removing western colonialism from the country. For this statement and his “anti-Western” actions, he was convicted and sentenced to three years. Afterwards,$5 million was covertly transferred to the new government and U.S. oil companies gobbled up 40% of Iran's oil market.

The installed ruler named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, commonly called the Shah, brutally governed Iran for next 26 years. Almost immediately, sixty former Mossadegh supporters and supporters of the two major national parties were executed. Hundreds more were arrested and national parties were banned. In 1963, the Shah pushed for reforms in culture, society, economics and elections called the "White Revolution." This infuriated Muslim clerics, including Aytollah Ruhollah Khomieni. His speeches inspired massive demonstrations which were stopped by the Savak, the Shah's secret police through violent repression (One must remember that these forces received $500,000 from the Kennedy Administration for "riot control”). Every opposition action led to torture in prisons, mosques or the streets. In early 1978 hundreds of protesters were massacred in Qom by the Shah's armed forces. This ratcheted up the tension and the Khomieni called for the ousting of the Shah. In fact, the Shah left on his own accord. Khomieni returned to Iran in the early months of 1979, calling for a national referendum. A few months later he was declared the Supreme Leader of an Islamic Republic by popular vote. After debating the issue for a long time, President Jimmy Carter accepted the Shah into America to give him access to some of the best medical facilities in the world. Radicals were outraged and with Khomieni's call for mass demonstrations, the U.S. Embassy was occupied by Iranian students. Remembering their history these occupiers wanted to prevent another possible coup d'etat led by America. Ever since, relations gave been strained with the Islamic Republic and hurt with the rest of the Arab World.

In the present, that history has come up again and again in Iranian consciousness. According to WikiLeaks cache of U.S. embassy cables, there is number of different discoveries about Iran. For one, the United States has been involved in Iran in some way since that time and people are tired of reforms. A timeline of the cables sent about Iran shows an interesting perspective of American by Iranians and vice versa.

On August 3^rd 2009 a cable stated: “In a sprawling indictment, the IRIG [Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps] linked US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media outlets, the MEK, human and labor rights activists such as Shirin Ebadi, and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The prosecutor read a sprawling indictment linking US and Iran-based NGOs, Israel, foreign media, the MEK, human and labor rights activists and Iranian reformist figures, among others, in a vast conspiracy aimed at toppling the IRIG… The Islamic Republic has long used manufactured confessions and woven elaborate charges involving foreign hands to discredit both activists with political aspirations and apolitical critics of the ruling system.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI327&q=dissidents%20iran)

This accusation, although the U.S. government denies it in the cable (in the last sentence), has some basis. One must realize that the story of the cable changed twice, first the IRIG linked groups to the conspiracy then it becomes the prosecutor that read the indictment. The USA Today reported a story that almost confirms the indictment. In 2009, the news outlet wrote in an article titled “U.S. grants support to Iranian dissidents”: “The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush…U.S. efforts to support Iranian opposition groups have been criticized in recent years as veiled attempts to promote "regime change," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American advocacy group. The grants enable Iran's rulers to paint opponents as tools of the United States, he said.” 

Four days after 9/11, on September 15^th, 2001, one cable remarked “OF THE FEW IRANIANS INTERVIEWED WHO APPEARED TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF TEHRAN'S POLICIES, COUNTERBALANCING US INFLUENCE IN THE REGION WAS SEEN TO BE A MOTIVATOR FOR THE REGIME'S ACTIVITIES…HEAVY US SUPPORT OF ISRAEL HAS INSURED THAT IRAN WOULD SUPPORT THE PALESTINIANS, AND PROVIDED A CONVENIENT PRETEXT FOR US CONTINUANCE…DUBAI-BASED IRANIAN ENTREPRENEUR PROVIDED HIS OPINION OF WESTERN ASSERTIONS THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS A STATE SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM…[HE] MAINTAINED THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING "ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN ISRAEL, THE US OR UK." ACCORDING TO HIM THE US SELECTIVELY SINGLES OUT IRAN AND HE USED THE UAE-IRAN DISPUTE OVER ABU MUSA AND THE TUNBS ISLANDS AS AN EXAMPLE, SAYING THAT THE ONLY TIME THE GCC MAKES BELLIGERENT STATEMENTS AGAINST IRAN IS WHEN THE US IS PRESSURING THEM TO PUNISH TEHRAN. HE CONTINUED THAT THE ORGANS IN IRAN THAT CARRY OUT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM--SUCH AS THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES--ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RETAIN POWER.”  (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=01DUBAI1141&q=iran)

The most important parts in this cable, other than the counterbalancing of the U.S. influence by Iran are important to understanding the Iranian perspective.  The cable records the argument of an Iranian entrepreneur who maintained that Iran is following in Israeli, American and British footsteps. Noam Chomsky remarks in his book “9-11” about American footsteps. He writes: “We should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is the regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council Resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law.” As to the claim that Britain is a terrorist state, there is some validity to that statement as well. One book came out on the subject seems to summarize this thought. The synopsis of the book states: “Under the noses of the British government, parliament, intelligence services and police, Britain has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism. Terrorists have used it to plot, finance, recruit and train for atrocities throughout the world, and now also at home.” For the idea that Israel is a terrorist state, there is also evidence for that claim as well. One website argues that exact point:  “It hardly needs to be pointed out that Israel is a terrorist state. Brutal repression of, and bloody attacks on, Palestinian civilians with the official Israeli aim of causing a change in the policies or actions of the Palestinian leadership is a clear case of terrorism…Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism.” However, the businessman’s point is still not a valid defense of Iranian actions. It reminds me of the times Republicans exclaim that climate change legislation isn’t in effect in China and as result is shouldn’t happen in America.

Only seventeen years earlier the United States had attempted a coup in Iran and on May 21^st, 1997, a diplomatic cable stated: “REFERRING TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IN IRANIAN COURTS FOR U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, KHOMEINI FULMINATED THAT THEY HAVE REDUCED THE IRANIAN PEOPLE "TO A LEVEL LOWER THAN THAT OF AN AMERICAN DOG…THEREFORE, A PREEMINENT CONSIDERATION FOR IRAN'S RULERS ON ANY CONTACTS WITH THE U.S., WILL BE HOW TO ENGAGE WITHOUT APPEARING TO COMPROMISE THIS PRIZED INDEPENDENCE…THEY FIND IT SO INCREDIBLE THAT THEY BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY DO SEE IT BUT ARE CHOOSING TO DELIBERATELY AND SUBTLY HELP THE REGIME…IT IS ONLY A SHORT LEAP TO THE FERVENT STATEMENT THAT THE U.S. OUSTED THE SHAH AND INSTALLED KHOMEINI BECAUSE IRAN WAS BECOMING TOO POWERFUL IN THE REGION FOR OUR TASTE. ALTHOUGH THIS MAY SOUND INCREDIBLE AND FAR-FETCHED TO AMERICAN EARS, VARIANTS OF THIS BELIEF ARE AMAZINGLY WIDESPREAD AMONG THE IRANIANS WE MEET…FROM THE IRANIAN REGIME'S PERSPECTIVE, THE UNITED STATES HAS CONTROL OVER THEIR DESTINY. THEY TRULY WORRY THAT WE CAN UNSEAT THEM IF WE WISH. EVEN IF THEY CALCULATE THAT WE HAVE NO PRESENT INTENTION TO DO SO, THEY PROBABLY NURSE FEARS THIS COULD CHANGE…THE U.S. ARE AS MUCH A DOMESTIC AS A FOREIGN POLICY ISSUE FOR IRAN…U.S. HAS NO PRESENCE AND LITTLE INFLUENCE IN IRAN…THIS ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS. THE IRANIANS DON'T SEE IT THIS WAY…THE U.S. HAS ATTEMPTED TO DESIGN A CAGE OF SANCTIONS AND PRESSURE TO CONTAIN IRAN. BUT THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN KEEPING THE PERSIAN LION IN A CAGE AND JUST PRODDING HIM, GETTING HIM MADDER AND MADDER. IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PRODDING, BUT RATHER THAT, AT SOME POINT, THE DOOR TO THE CAGE MUST BE OPENED SO THE LION KNOWS WHICH WAY TO GO.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=97ABUDHABI3777&q=iran)

This cable is interesting for a few reasons. One reason is because it mentions the anger toward the United States, less than twenty years after the American-installed ruler, the Shah, was deposed. To put those statements into context, one must remember that the United States had military actions in Iran in 1946, 1980, 1984 and 1987-8. Also, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, causing great outrage. The fact that United States says its influence is little is an understatement considering the fact that globalization has spread American products far in wide, even at that time. On the other hand, one statement shocked me more than everything else in the cable: “ABSENCE OF DIRECT CONTACTS PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE IN BRINGING DIRECT PRESSURE TO BEAR TO ADVANCE OUR INTERESTS.” From that quoted portion it seems the U.S. government wants a covert operation in the country or the possible overthrow of the government. Today, according to an AP article Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are calling for a similar objective: the overthrow of governments in Syria and Iran. Rick Santorum did not go to that extreme yet he said covert operations are needed in Iran and Rick Perry called for sanctions, the Obama Administration’s approach.

The previous year, the covert regime change in Iraq had ended and on November 12^th, 1996 a cable stated: “ABDUL HAQ, A FORMER LEADER OF THE AFGHAN COMMANDERS SHURA…SAID TEHRAN VIEWED THE TALEBAN AS A U.S. TOOL AIMED AT DESTABILIZING IRAN. HE ALSO FELT THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN WAS DRIVING IRAN AND SUNNI EXTREMISTS INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS AND IF THIS CONTINUES "OUR MAIN EXPORT WILL BE TERRORISM."…COMMENTING ON HIS VISITS TO IRAN, ABDUL HAQ SAID THE IRANIANS HATE THE TALEBAN. HE SAID THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THE TALEBAN ARE NOT MERELY CONTROLLED BY PAKISTAN, BUT ARE PART OF A SINISTER U.S. DESIGN TO DESTABILIZE IRAN. THE REASONING APPEARS TO BE THAT A HARDLINE SUNNI ISLAMIST REGIME IN AFGHANISTAN MIGHT APPEAL TO THE LARGE SUNNI ETHNIC MINORITIES THAT INHABIT IRAN'S PERIPHERY, E.G. IN BALUCHISTAN. HE ALSO SAID THAT, LIKE IT OR NOT, THE U.S. WAS IDENTIFIED WITH THE TALEBAN AMONG AFGHANS. IF THEY WIN, THE U.S. WILL BE SEEN TO GAIN. IF THEY LOSE, IRAN WILL BE SEEN TO HAVE GAINED… HE SAID IRAN IS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT A PAKISTAN- AFGHANISTAN COMMERCIAL ALLIANCE COMPETING WITH IRAN FOR ACCESS TO THE MARKETS OF THE CIS.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=96ABUDHABI7350&q=iran)

I found this cable interesting because it made clear that the Taliban was perceived as a U.S. instrument for change in that country. A similarity to those possible covert activities came up in an article published eleven days ago. The WSWS wrote: “The United States is waging a sustained covert campaign of destabilisation against Iran, focusing on efforts to disrupt its nuclear program… President Barack Obama…issue[d] a bellicose statement threatening possible military action: “No options off the table means I’m considering all options,” he said….Britain’s Daily Mail asked bluntly, “Has the West's war with Iran already begun? Mystery explosions at nuke sites, ‘assassinated’ scientists and downed drones fuel fears covert conflict is under way.” Writing in the Guardian, Seamus Milne was less equivocal. “War on Iran has already begun. Act before it threatens all of us,” ran his comment. “For months the evidence has been growing that a US-Israeli stealth war against Iran has already begun, backed by Britain and France.” Paul Vallely, in the Independent, was equally blunt, declaring, “War on Iran has begun. And it is madness.”” Even if the allegations about the Taliban weren’t correct in 1997, covert operations are alive and well in Iran today, led by United States (confirmed by the downing of the CIA drone) and not surprisingly by Israel as well.

Getting back to the present, the year of the Iranian election, a cable stated on August 3^rd: “The Syrian media consultant said that the heated debates before the election, in which the three challengers -- Mousavi, Karroubi, and Reza'i -- publicly criticized Ahmadinejad for corruption and economic mismanagement, made it clear to Arabs that this election was about Iran, not the U.S. This distinction, coupled with the U.S.' restraint in commenting on the election, provided an unprecedented window for Arab commentators to criticize Ahmadinejad without appearing to side with the U.S…One Saudi commentator contrasted Turkish regional mediation, which he described as a positive force in the region, with Iranian regional intervention, which he called pernicious and destabilizing. A Lebanese commentator noted the irony of Iran accusing outsiders of interfering in its internal affairs when there is not "one corner of the Arab world" where Iran does not intervene behind the scenes.” (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09RPODUBAI316&q=dissidents%20iran)

I find this cable one of the most interesting of all. The challengers to Ahmadinejad argue that the election should be about “Iran, not the U.S.” On the next line the cable comments that reporters will not “appear…to side with the U.S.” Well, are they sided with the America? That is a question to be answered with further research. Coming back to the cable, the Saudi and Lebanese commentators seem to be picked out of the blue, supporting the U.S. government’s narrative. This cable does not mention (conveniently) the most recent plot to overthrow Iran’s government. An ABC article published in 2007 remarks: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions... The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran. Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks… Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation… As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region.”” If you scoff at this idea, Wikipedia puts in even clearer words. The idea sounds similar to Operation Ajax, the covert operation that ended up with the deposing of the democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh in 1953. Wikipedia’s page on U.S. covert regime change states the following:

“President Bush secretly authorized the CIA to undertake black operations against Iran in an effort to topple the Iranian government. The Black Ops include a U.S. propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize the government, and disrupting the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and its international financial transactions. The United States began to target Iran and several other Muslim countries for regime change starting at least in 2001…An article in the New York Times in 2005 said that the Bush administration was expanding efforts to influence Iran's internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government…Un-named administration officials were reported as saying the State Department was also studying dozens of proposals for spending $3 million in the coming year "for the benefit of Iranians living inside Iran" including broadcast activities, Internet programs and "working with people inside Iran" on advancing political activities there. In 2006, the United States congress passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act which directed $10 million towards groups opposed to the Iranian Government… The U.S. provides no direct funding to the [Pakistani militant] group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Persian Gulf states…The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.””  

In conclusion, it is right for Iran to be angry at the United States due to current actions there covertly and actions in the past. One of those actions was the 1953 overthrow of government, mentioned throughout this article, leading to a hostage crisis and the leadership of Islamic fundamentalists led by Khomeini. I hope that all those reading this gain understanding of the perspectives on this topic and participate in peaceful, direct action to bring about change.

A new political spectrum: solving problems of the left-right system

Almost every blog ends up with a battle over the current political spectrum that has liberal at one end, conservative at the other and moderate in the middle. There are other extremes mentioned like radical and reactionary, but it is too limiting. Another problem is the current system used was created during the 1790s in France, denoting a “left” and “right.” The new spectrum I created is below:

From a number of sources, including definitions I created myself, there is the definition of each term on the eight-pointed spectrum above. 

I’ll start with the terms Aristocrat and Democrat. The idea came from Noam Chomsky’s book titled Secrets, Lies and Democracy. Mr. Chomsky writes that “Thomas Jefferson…made a distinction between two groups—aristocrats and democrats. Aristocrats “fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.” This view is held by respectable intellectuals in many different societies today, and is quite similar to the Leninist doctrine that the vanguard party of radical intellectuals should take power and lead the stupid masses to a bright future. Most liberals are aristocrats in Jefferson’s sense…Henry Kissinger is an extreme example of an aristocrat. Democrats, Jefferson wrote, “identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish them and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interest. In other words, democrats believe the people should be in control, whether or not they’re going to make the right decisions. Democrats exist today, but their becoming increasingly marginal.” 

When the word ‘Democrats’ is mentioned, I am not talking about those of the Democratic Party. If one looks at the party platforms and compares them, you could consider the Republican and Democratic parties to be one big party with two parts, having some differences, but not many. Also one could say that both of the so-called major parties are separate, but so similar that the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” don’t mean anything. If one is to interpret this correctly, think of Democrats in the Jeffersonian sense, as those that want the people in control, not some elite class. Do not think of the word “Democrat” in this political spectrum as those that cave in on certain issues in the federal legislature, do insider trading legally for the most part and get money from special interests. Those that are running in the 2012 election for “the 99%” as shown on Occupy the Ballot’s website would encompass Democrats (in the Jeffersonian sense). More evident of this is in the working document of OWS candidates, which can be seen below:

 

In my reading of different internet postings, I read once that one person characterized the world as divided between those for and those against corporations. As a result that was incorporated into the new spectrum in the words corporatist and Non-corporatist (or Anti-corporatist). I’ll start with non-corporatism, which many call “Anti-corporatism.” One blog owner mentioned[i] what they defined this term: “I am a radical anti-corporatist. I think all should be free to organize to further their own ends, but not by implic[i]tly and malignantly conspiring to reduce the interests of everyone else.” I searched the internet and looked for more information on this term. Another person on topix briefly mentioned it: “I'm anti-corporatism [because] capitalism eventually leads to corporatism especially in America where everything has a price tag on it.”[ii] I kept going through topix and found more material. While I don’t agree with the viewpoint expressed toward the Occupy Wall Street protesters from the topix forum, some of the text still applies to this discussion: “I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-corporatist. I'm against too much power in the hands of too few people who control all the levers of power, no matter who those people are.”[iii] Finally, I looked at The New Moderate blog. One person below the article commented: “I’m increasingly an anti-corporatist. Sure, plenty of corporations make plenty of worthwhile products, but 1) they’ve become far too influential with our elected representatives, and 2) they’ve essentially become winner-take-all games, with the CEOs often earning 1000 times more than the average employee.”[iv] From all of these sources I have concluded that if one is a non-corporatist they are: against grand combinations such as monopolies and trusts, but think that everyone should be able to organize businesses or whatever whenever they want but in a way that benefits others, against an plutocratic-type government with the wealthy wielding major power and reducing the influence of the corporations on the political process. 

 

From all of that, you are probably still wondering what a corporatist is. A University of Massachusetts report gets us a little closer to the answer. It argues that John Maynard Keynes was a corporatist, while defining the word.[v] From the pdf, I picked those words to define this term and a person who embodies this term would:  

•    “decisively reject the traditional theory of perfect competition” 
•  “[accept] the ongoing trend toward increased reliance on public corporations, and argue that the government should…accept the current movement toward cartels, holding companies, trade associations, pools and other forms of monopoly power [and] should proactively assist and accelerate this trend in order to regulate and control it”  
• “[say] The state [should] set goals for these corporations and evaluate their performance, but not manage them directly.” 
•  “[support]...self-regulation [of big business in order to create]…the ultimate corporatist institutional arrangement.”

In the definition of this word, I am not promoting a conspiracy; rather one showing that one who believed these ideals would want a government that benefits big business in some way or another, as well as for their one benefit.

 

The issue of corporatism is on many people’s minds ever since the beginning of this economic crisis which one could call the second Great Depression. However, armed conflict is a major problem that must be put into the political spectrum through the terms “War Hawk” and “Peace Activist.” I’ll start with the latter term. In a facebook comment, one can get closer to its definition. One user states[vi]: “[that in today’s world] the wars rage on costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives.” The same user on Third Party Forum’s facebook group writes of the goal to “eradicate[e]…war by restoring democracy in America.” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting had an article about peace activists, mentioning a rally in April where people “were speaking out on a…timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.”[vii] According to a few excerpts from Chris Hayes articles linked on Third Party forum, one can get closer to defining the word at hand. Mr. Hayes inadvertently defines the term as those who oppose “pre-emptive war and occupation” along ending those wars that damage out country’s well-being. From these excerpts, I define a peace activist as one who opposes occupation of other parts of the world, opposes armed conflict (most if not all of it) and wants to take money out of the military budget to help each other at home. 

You are probably wondering what a war hawk is, since I’ve already defined a peace activist. Last year, I wrote about War Hawks and the Tea Party.[viii] More relevant to this discussion as of now is who the original “War Hawks” were: “A group of 10 individuals who…wanted war with Britain [and they corrupted the] President of the United States, James Madison [to go to war with Britain].” Today, that same ideology stays in place with those of this term as those that do not want to cut the military budget and those that want to go to war, increasing the expenditures on the national budget. Those of this position defend themselves saying troops must be worldwide for “national security” or “defending our interests.” In addition, those that support war in any shape or form would fall into this category as well. 

  

While the term “war hawk” and “peace activist” epitomize the struggle over the issue of war, it isn’t enough to complete the spectrum as a whole. Libertarians (Market Anarchist) and Coercive Collectivists must be included as well. Market Anarchists is defined on page 27 of David Miller’s book titled Political Philosophy as those that “claim we could contract and pay individually for the services the state now provides, including crucially for personal protection. In the absence of the state, forms would offer to protect clients and their property, and this would include retrieving property that had been stolen, enforcing contracts, and obtaining compensation for personal injury. So if my neighbour steals something that is mine, instead of calling the (public) police, I would call my protective agency, and they would take action against the troublesome neighbour.” 

William Levinson tacks on some other ideas to this term. He defines these people[ix] as those for equal opportunity, an all-volunteer armed forces, encouraging private citizens to learn how to use firearms and those that are practical recognize the need to pay taxes for collective national defense. In addition, those of this term find flag burning offensive but not punishable by law, say there should be little or no gun control with citizens using weapons for their self-defense as well as the country as a whole against foreign enemies, the government must issue weapons if does not want to restrict military service and people have the right to pray in a school or anywhere else as long as it doesn’t disrupt others. Also these people are for private retirement accounts and pro-choice. In opposition, he defines a “Coercive Collectivist” as one that wants "a higher, nobler, and kinder world based on the sanctity of the Crowd and the villainy of the single person,” those that want flag burning to be illegal, want private security forces and want mandatory school prayer. Furthermore, those of this term believe that there should be mandatory participation in a government retirement plan (like Social Security), want a return of the draft, in support of affirmative action, exclusion of certain racial/ethnic groups and in favor of compulsory abortions. To clarify, one must realize that the person who came created the scale between “coercive collectivist” and “libertarian” was leaning to the side of libertarianism, so he made the other side sound worse. Even so, I believe the terms make sense, but I made some modifications.

This eight-pointed political spectrum as a whole, combining the ideas of those across the internet is a comprehensive way to tell where you are on the political spectrum. In the middle can be whatever term you please, which I leave open to the discretion of the one using the spectrum. In the end, I hope this spectrum solves the problems of the current failures of the political system.

---

[i] http://khanneasuntzu.com/

[ii] http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/mgvm3/loud_and_clear/

[iii] http://www.topix.com/forum/city/portsmouth-oh/TJ31PD9PM9CSKGPHJ/p3

[iv] http://newmoderate.com/2009/10/07/corporatism-and-communism-too-close-for-comfort/

[v] http://people.umass.edu/crotty/JEI_Keynes-corp.pdf

[vi] http://www.facebook.com/notes/nicole-nichols/do-you-have-a-story-to-tell/10150274899909789

[vii] http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/592/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6545

[viii] http://hermannview.tumblr.com/post/1448332035/will-the-tea-party-people-become-the-next-war-hawks

[ix] http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

Al Gore and George Bush: Was there a real difference?

I was discussing with an adult who works at the NIH about Ralph Nader. The adult said: "Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to not be President." I responded: "Well, what about the Supreme Court's ruling?" He said in return: "It was Nader. That's why I don't support Nader anymore." That conversation inspired me to write this article about the 2000 election. First I'll go into the positions of both candidates (Bush and Gore). Then I’ll compare them later on.

Before I get into analysis of Democratic and Republican candidates in 2000, I’d like to address an issue that rattled the elections that year. Some say, including my dad, that Ralph Nader was saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush were very similar and that’s why you should vote me (gaining Mr. Nader over a million votes). Politifact did a review of the statements by Mr. Nader, who wrote in an editorial for the New York Times: “I have indicated that there are 'few major differences' between the two parties not that there is 'no difference between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush,' as Mr. Kennedy wrote. Second, I have never said that I would vote for George W. Bush, whom I have strongly criticized across the country, if forced to choose between him and Al Gore." This got the idea in people’s heads that Mr. Nader was saying they were the same candidate. Mr. Nader implied that he thought Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore equally objectionable. In a news conference in 2000 he said: "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies. The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door.” Four days before the election in Philadelphia, he repeated the same thing: “It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote. Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity." At the end, Politifact concluded: So no, Nader never explicitly said "it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president." But his talk of "Republicrats," "Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum," and "one corporate party" left many people — friend, foe and impartial observer alike — with the impression that that's what he believed. We find Nader's statement that he "never said" it to be Barely True. To disprove or prove Mr. Nader’s statements, I looked at the funding of both of the candidates.

I wanted to have a view of how both candidates for President in the 2000 election got their funding. I started with the Federal Election Commission first, saying that by September 30th, 1999, George W. Bush had about $57 million in recipts, $19 million in dismebursements and about $37 million on hand. Al Gore had about $25 million in receipts, $14 million in disbursements and $10 million on hand. But that isn’t enough to prove Mr. Nader’s statements about both political parties. In on article by Common Dreams, it says certain actions by Mr. Bush, a Texas oil man, are for “the benefit of...corporate and fundamentalist sponsors.” But that’s not enough to show specifically who Mr. Bush’s sponsors were. The Miller Center wasn’t that specific either, stating: “Although new to national politics, Bush was practically anointed as the Republican standard-bearer by the GOP establishment in early 1999 after he proved to be a one-man fundraising machine that scored a record $68.7 million the year before the election.” I looked and looked for another article or articles about who exactly donated to his presidential campaign. I couldn’t find any exact articles. But I did find an OpenSecrets report of the 2004 election that stated that corporations such as Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch as well as other big companies were some of major donors to Mr. Bush’s campaign against the Democrats (John Kerry and John Edwards) that year. Finally I found a site that exposed Bush’s contributors in the 2000 election. Luckily the website’s creators had grabbed an OpenSecrets report from that year and from other analysis concluded that “[the] Agribusiness [gave] Bush $2,148,624...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] Bush $1,463,799...[the] Construction [industry gave] Bush $3,472,82...[the] Real Estate [gave] Bush $3,661,372...[the] Automotive [industry gave] Bush $1,019,581...Drug companies [gave] Republicans/Bush 73% of $13,800,000...The ten corporations that funnelled the most soft money into Bush’s campaign, according to FEC data, are as follows: AT&T directed 62% of its $4,479,653 in soft money donations to Republican groups...Seventy-six percent of UPS’s $2,662,994 in soft money went to Republican groups, along with a whopping 79% of Philip Morris’ $2,565,880. Verizon Wireless funneled 63% of $2,874,921 to Republican groups. MBNA America Bank put 82% of $2,193,550 into Republican campaigns. Enron...gave 76% of $2,015,853 to Republican warchests, mostly through the RNC. Merrill Lynch devoted 74% of $2,000,025 to Republican groups. Pfizer Inc...diverted 84% of $1,810,572 to Republican campaigns. Bristol-Myers Squibb gave 84% of $1,751,442. Fedex gave 65% of $2,095,328...Dell Computers executive Michael Dell...personally donated $250,000 to the RNC...Afinity Group, Inc chair Stephen Adams has...invested $1 million in soft money in Bush’s campaign...Aurora Capital Partners chair Gerald Parsky...[has] personally given $200,000 to the RNC...Cisco CEO John Chambers...gave $310,000 in soft money; Charles R. Schwab of Charles Schwab Investments...gave $270,000; and Leach Capital’s Howard Leach...gave $120,000.” That sounds like he was in with the Big Corporations. But that’s not all.

Al Gore also got numerous donations from big companies as well, described on the website I mentioned earlier. For Mr. Gore: “[the] Agribusiness [gave]...$240,350...[the] Oil & Gas [industry gave] $95,460...[the] Construction [industry gave] $920,938...Real Estate [industry gave] $1,213,310...[the] Automotive [industry gave]...$79,085...Drug companies [gave]...23% of $13,800,000 [or about $3.1 million, more than any other big company].” After Mr. Gore decided to concede in December after the 2000 election recount, saying that he welcomes George W. Bush as the President, donors decided to turn their back on him. However, iIn the process more donors were revealed. Brainer Dispatch wrote about this in an article, detailing a few examples of Al Gore donors: “Vinod Gupta, an Internet entrepreneur who contributed $318,000 to Gore and Democratic committees...Trevor Pearlman, Dallas venture capitalist and former trial lawyer who contributed $161,000 to Gore and the Democratic National Committee during this election cycle.” An analysis of the money donated isn’t all that will invalidate or validate Mr. Nader’s widely misinterpreted point in the 2000 election. The political views will prove if both candidates were in one big corporate party or if they were completely different.

First I looked at the Republican candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush. Here’s a list of some of George W. Bush’s political views before he became President (I picked ones that would make a comparison better):

• Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall. (Oct 2000)

• No tax money for abortion, but no Pro-Life Amendment either. (Sep 2000)
• “It’s time for a change” in Washington. (Oct 2000)

• Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork. (Jun 2000)
• Local control with consequences if racial profiling occurs. (Oct 2000)

• Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)

• Ignored Byrd hate crime bill despite plea by Byrd’s family. (Oct 2000)
• Death penalty for deterrence, not revenge. (Oct 2000)

• Death penalty for hate crimes like any other murder. (Oct 2000)

• Miranda [rights] should be waived in some situations. (Jun 2000)

• More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)

• Zero tolerance on disruption, guns, & school safety. (Apr 2000)

• Improve education with local control, accountability. (Sep 2000)
• Tax money to religious schools OK, if they’re teaching kids. (May 2000)

• Better to drill ANWR than import oil from Saddam Hussein. (Oct 2000)

• Replenish energy supplies with new domestic coal & pipelines. (Oct 2000)
• Weaken Clean Air [act] (Nov 2000)

• Internet filters, ratings, & parental monitoring for kids. (Oct 2000)

• Promote abstinence in schools and via churches. (Apr 2000)

• Africa’s important but not a priority; no nation-building. (Oct 2000)
• China is an American competitor, not a friend. (Feb 2000)

• US should humbly empower other countries, not dictate. (Oct 2000)

• Less intervention abroad and unilateral nuclear cuts at home. (Sep 2000)
• Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO. (Apr 2000)
• Regulatory style: like Reagan, get government out of the way. (Oct 2000)

• Ban soft money, but no public financing of elections. (Oct 2000)

• Full disclosure and no giving limits. (Mar 2000)
• No corporate or union soft money. (Feb 2000)

• Would sign, but would not push, gun restrictions. (Apr 2000)
• Ban automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips. (Apr 2000)
• Restrict teenage smoking by tough state & federal laws. (Mar 2000)

• Give seniors choice, not bureaucrats; give incentives too. (Sep 2000)

• Be world’s peacemaker instead of world’s policeman. (Oct 2000)

• Rebuild military so it can fulfill mission to prevent war. (Oct 2000)
• Gays in military OK; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” OK. (Sep 2000)

• Post-Cold War: remove weapons & high-alert; build SDI. (May 2000)

• Make INS more “immigrant friendly”. (Jun 2000)

• Put U.S. interests first and execute goals with good team. (Oct 2000)

• Don’t treat Social Security like it’s a federal program. (Nov 2000)

• Privatize Social Security to take advantage of stock market. (May 2000)
• Don’t eliminate gas tax; ask OPEC to increase supply. (Jul 2000)

• Yes, wealthy get tax relief, but 6M poor will pay no tax. (Oct 2000)
• All Americans deserve tax relief; no more “fuzzy numbers”. (Oct 2000)
• No national sales tax or VAT. (Feb 2000)

• Israel: America should be a stronger friend. (May 2000)

Al Gore’s positions when he was running to became the next President:

• Ban partial-birth abortions, except for maternal health. (Oct 2000)
• Opposes partial birth abortion, but opposes banning it. (Sep 2000)
• Right to choice, regardless of economic circumstance. (Mar 2000)
• Wrote in 1984 that abortion is arguably taking a life. (Jan 2000)
• Paying down debt reduces government intrusion. (Oct 2000)

• Pay off the national debt by 2013. (Apr 2000)

• Ban racial profiling by Executive Order. (Jan 2000)

• Find some way for civic union; but not gay marriage. (Oct 2000)
• National hate crimes law is needed, absolutely. (Oct 2000)

• Intensify the battle against crime, drugs, and disorder. (May 2000)
• Death penalty for deterrence, but carefully. (Oct 2000)

• Lead a national crusade against drugs. (May 2000)

• Loosen restrictions on medical marijuana. (Mar 2000)
• Tougher drug policies; fight drugs in Colombia. (Mar 2000)
• “Revolutionary plan”: 50% more for public schools. (Jan 2000)

• Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Sep 2000)

• For Kyoto; for national parks; against drilling ANWR. (Nov 2000)
• Abstinence Ed in the context of comprehensive Sex Ed. (Sep 2000)

• Gore supports vigorous intervention abroad (Oct 2000)

• Strong defense for world leader; tie defense to other issues. (Jan 2000)

• Fair trade: standards for child labor & environment. (Aug 2000)
• Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)

• Spending increase? “Absolutely not”; balance every budget. (Oct 2000)
• McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform will be first bill. (Oct 2000)

• Ban soft money and provide free broadcast time. (Sep 2000)
• Campaign finance reform will be very first bill to Congress. (Aug 2000)
• Free TV and radio for candidates during campaigns. (Mar 2000)

• Pledges to add not one new federal position. (Oct 2000)

• Tough gun laws & so much more, to stop child tragedies. (Mar 2000)
• Zero tolerance for guns at school; raise age to 21. (Jan 2000)
• Let FDA regulate cigarettes; fight teenage smoking. (Mar 2000)

• Build-down military to smaller but more effective. (May 2000)
• Nation-building is part of world leadership. (Oct 2000)

• Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unfair & hasn’t worked. (Sep 2000)
• Build less powerful SDI; to keep ABM treaty & START III. (May 2000)

• More immigrants to alleviate labor shortage. (Mar 2000)

• Voluntary school prayer is ok, if teachers aren’t involved. (Sep 2000)

• Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)

• Tax cuts to benefit middle-class, not just the rich. (Aug 2000)
• Eliminate estate taxes for the little guy, not the wealthy. (Jun 2000)

• “Digital Cabinet” of high-tech advisors. (Sep 2000)
• Broadcasters required to assist with “Democracy Endowment”. (Mar 2000)

• Create e-government, interactive access for all citizens. (Jun 2000)
• Internet self-regulation OK: privacy policy on all web sites. (Oct 2000)

• Regulate Internet privacy & child access, but not content. (Mar 2000)
• Universal Internet access should be a national priority. (Feb 2000)

• Genocide is a strategic interest & warrants intervention. (Oct 2000)
• Don’t let OPEC take advantage of Americans. (Sep 2000)

• Iraq: support Saddam’s opposition, until he’s gone. (May 2000)

Looking at both lists of political views, it seems there are some differences between both candidates. I created a chart of the views of both the candidates so you can compare them easier (all the red boxed items are ones that are similar)
I believe that on one hand Mr. Nader is right that both parties got lots of funding from corporations as I described earlier, but they were not same exactly. Some positions were completely different, as Al Gore was more in favor of an online government, while George W. Bush didn’t even mention it. It varied. In conclusion, I rate Mr. Nader’s statement as mostly true since there was many similarities on certain issues, however they still aren’t completely the same.


P.S.
Even Ralph Nader spoke about Mr. Obama in these words: “Well, I think Barack Obama is in training to become panderer-in-chief...And it’s quite clear that he is a corporate candidate from A to Z...He — you know, he’s letting the corporate-dominated city of Washington, the corporations who actually rule us now in Washington, determine his agenda.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it)