Competition

. . .

In the long term, however, we need to address a set of economic challenges that, frankly, the housing bubble largely papered over for almost a decade. We now live in a world that’s more connected and more competitive than ever before. When each of you tries to bring new jobs and industries to your state, you’re not just competing with each other, but you’re competing with China, you’re competing with India, you’re competing with Brazil, you’re competing with countries all around the world.

. . .

But even as we preserve the freedom and diversity that is at the heart of federalism, let’s remember that we are one nation. We are one people. Our economy is national. Our fates are intertwined. Today, we’re not competing with each other; we’re competing with other countries that are hungry to win new jobs, hungry to win new industries.

Barack Obama - Feb. 28, 2011: Address at National Governors Association Meeting

I for one think Barack Obama is a pretty smart guy - I think he really understands what's going on. So why in this speech did he twice have to say "we're not in competition with each other"?

There is a competition going on in American that not everyone understands yet. If not an all out war, then a very serious game, with dire consequences to winners and losers.

Years ago I used to have friends over on a Saturday or Sunday, and we would play a game all day long. These were games like Risk, Diplomacy, Supremacy, Comic Encounter, Monopoly, etc. The point was these were all strategy games and typically the goal of the game was total domination of your competition. One thing that was very true about all these games was that at some point or another someone, or someones would make their move, they would move from the background of everyone else playing the game and overtly be trying to dominate the game. Everyone else could see it too, because the rest of us would all band together to fight the one becoming dominant, alliances would dramatically reform, tactics would all change, but by then it was usually too late because people would not become overtly dominant unless they knew they had the win, and experiences showed this to usually be true. Few games ever ended in a stale-mate.

If you live in the world of mainstream media you would never be aware of what is going on because all you would see is games like Jeopardy, Survivor, The Price is Right, and other equally inane games of novelty. In truth I mean the mainstream news media like 60 Minutes, and Anderson 360, CNN, and all that other fluffy stuff that pretends to be serious or have some analysis. Or you might prefer Faux News if what you really just need is someone to tell you what to believe. However, if you spend any time watching PBS shows like Frontline, or networks like MSNBC, you might actually be exposed to some analysis and critical thinking.

There is a very serious game going on now, and most people just think it is politics - but they would be wrong. Politics is just a setting for the game, and not the real game. Nor is politics the only setting for the game, as there are other settings such as religion, ideology, commerce, class (or caste), etc. What are the stakes? Well, basically democracy and human rights.

If we look at some of the recent plays in the game we could look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's recent attempt to strip public employee unions of their bargaining rights, it is not hard to see that his original claims that there was a budget crisis in the state are patently false. First of all, he manufactured the crisis by giving enormous tax breaks to businesses thus creating a revenue shortfall for the state. Then, even when the public employee unions agreed to all his conditions, except losing bargaining rights, he outrightly refused to accept or negotiate. Finally, in prank phone call he basically admitted to the truth of the situation. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was probably the first person to articulate the real story, and has been able to analyse many similar stories.

So what is really happening? In her book the Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein offers a revealing insight into one strategy of the game. Basically the strategy is to identify or create a crisis, and then use that crisis to promote otherwise unpopular policies as being necessary to resolve the crisis. On the surface this strategy is usually identified as "negative campaigning" or outright "fear mongering," but the strategy goes much deeper than that. To put is simply, if you throw a stick of dynamite into a lake you create a crisis for the fish - you may not kill them, but you can easily harvest them while they are stunned.

So what is overtly happening to show someone is trying to win domination? If you look at right wing politics it is not hard to see that things have been cranked up a notch. The "vitriolic" dialog, mostly from the right, has been so obvious as to gain national attention, especially in light of Gabrielle Giffords' recent tragedy. But there are two distinct aspect to the right wing movement - one is commerce and the other is religion.

In terms of commerce, the amount of money spent by corporate interests in lobbying politicians seems to be growing unbounded, and 80% or more of that funding is for right wing politics. The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to relax restrictions on contributions by corporations to political campaigns shows how effective this lobbying is (and perhaps how effective inside deals are). Basically the Supreme Court was lobbied into making it easier for lobbyists to lobby, and for commerce interests to invest even great sums of money into political campaigns.

In terms of religion, the amount of new legislation that is being passed, or attempted to being passed, on religious ideology, but dressed up as job creating or cost cutting - well, it's quite impressive. Really, why does budget relieve legislation need amendments to restrict abortions or gay marriage?

Why are these two aspects of society so closely tied? Well on the one hand you have commercial interests, where the small minority of ultra rich increasingly need to "sell" unpopular policy to that majority people. On the other hand, you have the religious zealots who have thousands of years of experience of selling complete fabrications of truth to the masses. And the religious extremists need someone with power and influence to sell their unpopular ideas. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should be able to see that line of reasoning.

I will take a brief aside to say, that religion and faith (or spirituality) are not the same, and I do not want to debate faith or spirituality. I merely want to make it clear that "religion" is a tool of both the faithful and the corrupt. Religion is an especially useful tool for the corrupt because they hide their corruption under a cloak of morality.

So, back to what Obama has figured out. What is the game? Simply this...

We live in a finite world, with finite resources, and an unchecked expansion of population. Those right wing think tanks don't get paid to sit around all day and debate political philosophy. They are talented and skilled mathematicians, economists, lawyers, etc. - and they are paid to explain the truth and reality of the world to their employers, and how their employers can best exploit that truth and reality.

Obama (et al) can clearly see that the right has shown their strategy of dominance via their tactics and logistics. He knows that the right has turned inward to undermine democracy. The purpose of Scott Walkers budget relief bill was not to save the state money, but to crush the unions, who are basically the Democrats' main source of campaign funding. The Republicans know they can no longer rule by reason, they can only rule by undermining the ability for their main competition (the majority of voters) to compete on democratic grounds.

Basically Obama's message was to the right - it simply means "let us not turn upon ourselves and compete rich vs middle class and poor, but let us be competitive in the world arena."

Unfortunately this message is really on deaf ears, because the ultra rich in the US have already decided they cannot compete on the world stage, and the only place left to steal resources from is the middle class and the poor in their own country.

Maybe one of the reasons I can see the game so clearly is that I have played it many times before, and it really does not seem complicated or strange. Many times I have won the game too, and all I can say is that when you are playing a game, there is nothing at all that is too unethical, or too immoral, because after all, it is just a game.