LOOTOCRACY
By Paul Rogat Loeb
If you run a lootocracy, you have no conception of sufficiency. You set up the rules to grab as much money as you can, as if you've won a supermarket shopping spree. You also concentrate power, the better to arrange the world for your benefit. Unchecked by modesty, satiety, or shame, you take all you can get away with. You loot until someone stops you. The word lootocracy was originally coined to describe the corrupt cartels
that have ruled and plundered countries like Nigeria, Kenya, and some
of the former Soviet Republics. But with an amazingly small amount of
national debate, George Bush is installing a more global and sophisticated
version-one where those on top can do whatever they choose without the
slightest constraints. Bush began his presidency by giving the wealthiest
five percent of all Americans massive tax breaks of $75 billion a year.
He paid for them in part by cutting child abuse prevention, community
policing, Americorps, low-income childcare, health care, housing, and
even support for military families. This spring he passed another round
of cuts, $35 billion a year targeted overwhelmingly to the same lucky
lootocrats. You'd think these victories would leave the Bush administration
and its core supporters satisfied that they'd transferred more than
enough wealth to the very richest Americans. You'd also think they might
have notice that the first tax cut neither created new jobs or stemmed
the continuing loss of existing jobs. But no. House Republicans have
now just voted to end the Estate Tax permanently. If the Senate goes
along, this will transfer a trillion dollars more, over the coming two
decades, to an even tinier group of individuals. And key Republican
strategist Grover Norquist promises more cuts down the line, explaining,
"My goal is to cut government...down to the size where we can drown
it in the bathtub." Conservatives once preached fiscal restraint.
Now strategists like Norquist view massive deficits as a The notion that the world should be run at the discretion of the powerful also underpins Bush's foreign policy. We see the same lust for control, the same assumption that those in charge can do whatever they can get away with, the same sense that disagreement is forbidden. We see the same denial of long-term costs and consequences. Not all empires become lootocracies, but the more unaccountable power is,the greater the temptation to plunder. With a weapons budget greater than every other nation combined, our massive technological might threatens to flatten any nation that challenges us. If the UN supports our actions, we hail this as a mandate. If the UN doesn't, we act anyway, ignoring all international rules, and assembling a "coalition of the willing" reminiscent of children parading their imaginary friends. Given that the real threats of terrorism fly no national flags, the administration can always manufacture some excuse for intervention, as some of its key officials did in overthrowing democracies and supporting dictatorships during the Cold War. Instead of acknowledging the prime lesson of Sept 11, the profound interconnectedness of our world, this administration asserts the raw rule of power, confident that it will always prevail. Think about Bush's rejection of international treaties, whether on
war crimes, land mines, child labor, women's rights, tobacco control,
nuclear testing, small arms regulation, or biological weapons. To take
the example Having already enacted far too much of its agenda, this administration relentlessly pursues the rest. Now that they control the Senate and House, and have a largely sympathetic Supreme Court, those who embrace an ethic of unlimited greed seem to have more power than ever. But this power is still subject to check by real-world consequences and by the activism through which we make the issues real to our fellow citizens. The Iraq occupation becomes more of a quagmire each day. Terrorist bombs explode in Morocco, Algeria, and a once seemingly pacified Afghanistan. In the wake of the Iraq war, the Pew Foundation's Global Attitudes Project finds majorities in Islamic countries like Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, and Pakistan saying they have "confidence in Bin Laden to do the right thing in world affairs." That's a staggeringly troubling response, all the more since after 911 many of these same people were mourning in commiseration with our loss. Meanwhile, every community in this country has seen services for the poor and vulnerable--and much of the middle class--decimated by national budget cuts. We need to tell the buried stories that highlight the costs. This administration's arrogance has begun to produce a major citizen response-potentially as broad as any since the height of the 1960s. We saw this most visibly before the Iraq War. Many who spoke out then are beginning to work toward the 2004 election. Those of us who marched and spoke out now need to reach out to friends, neighbors, and communities about the staggeringly destructive implications of a world where the powerful do whatever they choose. There's a widespread temptation to identify with the winners. But in
a lootocracy we all lose out. We lose our voice, our democracy, our
confidence that we won't be bankrupted by medical bills or thrown into
the street, our Whatever particular issues we care about and take on, we also need to focus on the larger pattern-the destructiveness of a regime based on pillage. The very outrageousness of this administration's reach must inspire us to act for a vision based on connection, respect, and learning to live within our limits. For only by rejecting the ethic of relentless taking do we honor the common ties that bind us all. Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.soulofacitizen.org. By the way, one group that's doing seminal work to challenge the lootocracy's
hold on power is Public Campaign (www.publicampaign.org).
They're the organizing center for the efforts spreading around the country |