US President Donald Trump is preparing for his Fall 2020 re-election by practicing a recipe used by the Chicago Daley machine. Father and son Daley ruled Chicago for decades using police repression.
Policeman Derek Chauvin, who killed African-American George Floyd, offers the President of the United States an opportunity to use this recipe. The murder being followed by protests and looting, Trump complained about the weakness of the leaders and suggested not only that law enforcement officials dominate the street, but that use of the military may be required against the population.
Here is a short excerpt from a summary of the book “Chicago“:
“The exploitation of racial fears was quite successful. Daley was defending his policies by saying that “ most people are more worried about a black uproar than of a mayor that orders the use of lethal force to put an end to it and they recognized themselves far less in pacific protesters than in policemen that hit them with truncheons” (p.319).”
Cover of the book “Histoire de Chicago” by Andrew Diamond and Pap Ndiaye
The high social tensions and unnecessary violence that follow the police repression generate ever more fear, and it is this fear that some politicians take advantage of.
The most conservative politicians have long understood that installing fear in the population pays off politically. It is an easy and expeditious method. The government is responsible for “dominating” real and more often fictitious enemies and, in doing so, reassures the population while diminishing the rights and freedom of the American population so that it can act as it pleases later on other matters.
Even the usually silent American generals have made public appearances in an attempt to save American values. According to several observers, there is a gradual shift towards a seriously worrisome authoritarian political control.
Respect for the African-American population was the main factor at stake in the American Civil War, which lasted four years, between 1861 and 1865 and killed 750,000 people. It also cost President Lincoln his life. The problem of respect for African-Americans is still an issue.
All these people seen in protest at the death of George Floyd represent the non-racist side of the United States. It should not be forgotten that there is a large part of the American population who still dreams of retaining traditional white power: a population that cannot accept that the United States is changing and whose wealth comes from the mix of cultures and races. The solid base of American voters who support Donald Trump, this pathological liar who can say everything and its opposite in a single sentence, is not ready to give up on him.
Other non-negligible factors favor Trump during the American presidential elections in the fall of 2020: 1) a well-stocked election fund (pressure groups such as the NRA are big donors and influencers, 2) candidates from the Republican Party who approve of the Trump method or choose silence when they do not agree, 3) a hesitant Joe Biden who will not be able to stand up for confrontation during televised political debates, 4) an economy which will recover quickly with unemployment which has already started to decline, just in time for the election campaign. The right-wing media will ignore the appalling initial mismanagement of COVID-19 until the elections are over.
If I am wrong with my prediction, I will never have been so happy with my mistake!
Airmail OACI In flight with the United Nations 1971
I got this first day cover thirty years ago. It had no real monetary value but certainly a historical value for whoever is interested in aviation and airmail history.
After multiple hijacked flights in several countries, hijacks that could easily have been avoided, the pilots got tired of the situation and decided to take matter into their own hands. With both pilots and politicians involved, the situation progressively changed.
International laws were modified and security was also increased, both at airports and in the aircrafts.
Airmail Airline Pilots Special 747 Flight Committee 1971 New-York to Montreal
Below is a quote from the ICAO document:
“The series of skyjacking incidents, several of them desperate and dramatic, was a great and particular concern for the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA, Member of IFALPA, the largest airline pilot union in the world representing pilots from U.S. and Canadian airlines); ALPA sought an innovative step and an extraordinarily direct method to intensively lobby influential politicians from all over the world, as the fundamental problem in advancing a solution to the skyjacking problem laid in the realm of politics. A Boeing 747 sponsored by ALPA was rented from Pan Am and nearly 300 United Nations personnel flew on Saturday 6 November 1971 on a short international flight from New York to Montréal, being the home of ICAO; the aircraft was piloted by Captain Stanley L. Doepke of Pan Am. More than 30 crewmembers who had been skyjacked placed these world political leaders in a controlled and dramatic situation where they could hear their stories. All the international politicians from the UN General Assembly who accepted ALPA’s hospitality on the Montréal excursion went home vowing immediate action by their countries. A special first day cover was issued to commemorate this unique event and a medal was given to the UN Delegates. More information on this issue can be obtained by clicking on the following link: Hijacked Pilots Urge UN Action.
However, even with these two new Conventions signed in 1971, the issue on sanctions was not sufficiently addressed and a few terrorist actions early in 1972 gave rise to grave concern and threat to the safety of civil aviation; it was felt that perpetrators of such acts were not or not appropriately brought to justice. Because governments had failed to deal adequately with such hijacking, the International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) called for a world-wide 24-hour shutdown of services by pilots on 19 June 1972. The United States pressed in the ICAO Council for rapid action to complete the work on a convention which would provide for sanctions against states that did not punish hijackers. The ICAO Council adopted on 19 June 1972 a Resolution which directed the Legal Committee to convene immediately a special Subcommittee to work on the preparation of an international convention to look at this issue of sanctions.”
The transformation of Business, Democracy and Everyday Life
Robert B. Reich “Supercapitalism”
Robert B. Reich is a professor at the Berkeley University in California. He also worked for the American government under President Bill Clinton as secretary of labour.
Here is a quote from the New York Times on their review of “Supercapitalism”: “Reich documents in lurid detail the explosive growth of corporate lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions since the 1970s. . . . Supercapitalism is a grand debunking of the conventional wisdom in the style of John Kenneth Galbraith”.
Ferocious competition on an international scale
During the first few decades that followed the Second World War, before the globalization of the economy, the author shows that in United States, profits derived from mass production were based on rules that insured stability. There was a better redistribution of a company’s profits between workers, shareholders and managers. The CEO even had the possibility to take decisions that would benefit to both the society and his company. The middle class was in better shape.
At the same time as capitalism progressively gained terrain around the planet, increasing inequalities of incomes and wealth followed. The rise of supercapitalism, around the 70s, is due to the globalization of the economy and, consequently, to an increase of the international competition. Consumers and investors have been benefiting a lot from supercapitalism, but the citizen who feels a social responsibility and looks for the common good gradually lost ground.
The “consumer/investor” versus the “citizen”
The author writes that each person is of two minds: a “consumer and investor” but also a “citizen”. The consumer wants to acquire quality goods at low price and the investor wishes that the money invested towards his retirement provides a great rate of return. If the consumer finds a better price somewhere else, and if the investor considers that the return on investment (ROI) is not adequate, both will look towards the competition.
Meanwhile, the “citizen” in us wishes only good things for the society and the planet: companies must respect the environment; workers must have decent working conditions, etc. The paradox is that while we want the best, we encourage the worst.
Wishing the best while encouraging the worst
The fact that a superstore does not offer good working conditions to his employees irritates the “citizen” in us. However, the superstore’s lower operating costs allow us to save money. If prices go up, we will buy somewhere else.
As investors, we possess, through our mutual funds, numerous financially performing companies. In many countries around the world, profits redistributed to shareholders are the result of minimal working conditions given to employees and abuse on the environment. The investor regularly compares the rate of return of several mutual funds and other investments and he will not hesitate to sell his shares if profits are insufficient.
Increased pressure on the company’s CEO
Globalization and increased competition are forcing managers to think only in terms of return on investment. The CEO is accountable to his dissatisfied shareholders and mutual fund managers who both can sell their shares of an underperforming company.
Consequently, the role of a CEO is not to spend for reasons that would please the “citizen”, but instead to maximize profits using all the legal means at his disposal. This way, he satisfies the consumer and investor. He knows that all his competitors do the same.
As citizens, our role is to forbid companies to establish the rules of the game. Those rules must be set by the government in order to preserve democracy and encourage social responsibility.
Companies are not against new rules that would apply globally to all competitors. What they want to avoid is that a specific company benefits more than another one in the new deal.
Winning or preserving a competitive advantage because of lobbyists
Considering the strong international competition between companies, it is easy to understand that massive amounts of money and other efforts deployed to gain a competitive advantage are in constant growth.
After having worked in Washington, the experienced politician is hired by big corporations as a lobbyist (3% in 1970, 30% in 2005). While the politician’s attention is focused on consumers and investors, the citizen’s voice wishing a greater social equality is not heard.
Supercapitalism thus modifies the way the democratic system operates.
Mutual benefits between politicians and lobbyists
Politicians use that competition to demand important amounts of money to finance their political campaign. In exchange, they support and help push the agenda of a specific company: “That’s how politicians keep their hold on power, and lobbyists keep their hold on money”.
Democracy is perverted by the actions of lobbyists and the attraction that money and other advantages has on politician’s decisions. The government is not managed from the inside but by external powerful economic interests.
Better regulations can improve democracy
The author writes that companies cannot take personal initiatives to correct the situation since it will undermine their position towards other competitors in a global market. “Supercapitalism does not permit acts of corporate virtue that erode the bottom line. No company can “voluntarily” take on extra cost that its competitors don’t also take on, which is why, under supercapitalism, regulations are the only means of getting companies to do things that hurt their bottom lines”. Regulations can only be imposed by political actions.
Learn to recognize the actions used to distract the population
It is necessary for citizens and Medias to recognize the half-truths and distortions that “confound efforts to prevent supercapitalism from overrunning democracy”. The author names a few:
The public blame that changes nothing: beware of politicians who publicly blame corporations for actions that respect the law but that the public despise. The corporation works for the consumer and investor, not for the citizen. A public blame is easy and makes the politician look good. The latter must instead work at improving the law and corporations will then be forced to respect the new parameters.
The corporation that pretends to act on behalf of the public interest: do not believe a corporation that says it works for the public good. It is not its role. It is possible that, in order to improve its image or to satisfy the consumer (and ultimately its shareholders), it does something that looks like it is good for the public. But, basically, there is no acknowledgment of the public good, only a desire to preserve or improve its competitive position.
Lobbyists who pretend to look for the public good: lobbyists and experts who pretend that their initiatives are in the public interest only detract attention from their real objectives that are to protect or advantage a specific corporation.
The private sector and the “voluntary” cooperation: beware of politicians who claim that the public can count on the voluntary cooperation of the private sector in order to protect the public good. It is not the private sector’s role and it will not spend any money unless all of its competitors do the same. Those are only words aimed at buying time and confuse the public. If the public good is so important, then a law must be voted.
Public relation campaigns aimed at one specific corporation: beware of public relation campaigns and pressure groups working to force a specific company to be more socially virtuous. Try to discover the real goals behind those efforts. If all this seems reasonable to you, then ask yourself if a new law or new regulations forcing all the competing corporations to modify their behaviour would better serve the public.
Conclusion
A final quote summarizes very well the author’s thoughts: “In general, corporate responsibilities to the public are better addressed in the democratic process than inside corporate boardrooms. Reformers should focus on laws or regulations they seek to change, and mobilize the public around changing them”.
