College Protests in the New Millennium

In a recent letter to the Santa Cruz Weekly (Oct 14-20 2009), Kathy Cheer bemoaned the fact that the recent take over of the commons building at UCSC was non-eventful. Her hope was for a greater “show of force” and that the “UC agitators (would) seriously put forth demands and boycott with vigor.” She likened the serious money problems facing the UC system as a class war similar to the “civil war”. She ended her letter suggesting a “Up against the wall,” mentality toward the college and to “stare down the administration daily; make them queasy”.

My reaction to this letter is probably the same as most whom read it; Ms Cheer, UCSC is not a jail. The UC system is a gift from the citizens of California by the already over taxed payers; primarily the rich tax payers. The purpose of the UC system is to provide the citizenry of California with the opportunity to receive a high quality subsidized college education, for which it is the envy of most states. However, as I stated before, the tax base of California is reliant by the taxes paid by the rich. In a recession, the rich make less money and therefore pay less taxes. The state has reduced the UC system budget , resulting in cuts based on priorities. While there might be vigorous debate on these priorities, one can not blame the lack of funding on the Regents. The current UC agitators may well be protesting money diverted from the UC system to pay for programs that subsidize medical care for indigent families; or pay for the housing of convicts in state prison. Either way, encouraging a hostile environment on UC campuses, is not going to increase the money in the state coffers, but it will most certainly result in adversarial relationships between the students, teachers and administration.

During the Vietnam era violent protests and demonstrations resulted in a US President not running for re-election and an expedited end to an unpopular war. Theses protests got their start on college campuses, and were quickly joined by Marxist revolutionaries, who not only wanted an end to the war, but used the anti-war sentiments to try and forward their agenda of a violent overthrow of the United States. However it was the anti-war, minus the revolutionary agenda, that won out. It would seem however, that the some of the students who are now college professors, have never gotten over their ten minutes of fame and try and fall back on protests and demonstrations to right all the perceived wrongs they see in today's society. This of course is a right rooted in our country's history and guaranteed in our Constitution. The problem is, when viewed through Vietnam era glasses, you end up with radical idealism, espousing escalated intimidation and violence.

Right or wrong, UCSC students are often looked upon as adults by statued only, with limited life experience and only a summer or two older then their high school graduation. Most students will not stay long enough in our college town, to appreciate the incremental improvements that result in real positive change. In essence, knee jerk protests with escalating violence is the functional equivalent to a child throwing a tantrum, when they don't get their way. And since most college students feel fairly impotent, having lived their entire life dependent on their parents, the tantrum response would seem quite normal. What's missing here of course is having a dialogue; trying to see opposing view through the other side's eyes. A radical sees no other view but their own and attempts to silence any dissenting view. In this case there seems to be less money available to subsidize education. This may come as a shock but there are no shortages of students. I'm thinking while boycotts and escalating violence, has had some limited success in a jail setting, that hopefully success in higher education can be achieved through dialogue and intelligence; it is, after all, a place of higher learning.

Is President Obama's America Becoming a Socialist Corporate State?

-->

The term “fascism” has been bandied around recently, and before you dismiss the term as an extreme overstatement, it may be worth exploring what fascism actually means. First, if you call a person or political organization fascist, you are not necessarily calling them National Socialists (Nazis). While the two dovetailed together very well, the Nazi party was a political party, the same a Republican or Democrat. Fascism is a form of government; the du jour during the 1920s and 30s and embraced by European nations such as Spain, Italy, Romania, Germany and in South America, Brazil. Post WWII fascist countries include Argentina, Chile, Apartheid South Africa, Iraq and Iran. First, all fascist states are dictatorial and totalitarian states led by a charismatic leader. While created in many guises, fascism is best described as “Corporate Government”. Fascism usually lays it's foundation with the promise of a classless social welfare state. However, unlike true socialism, the “social welfare state” is not egalitarian; it is a promise to the middle class that hard work and allegiance to the state will be rewarded with prosperity. Fascism is anti-Capitalism, which it blames for it's class creation and anti-Communism for it's exploitation of class warfare and overbearing control. Fascism tends to emerge from a capitalistic state with a struggling economy. In a fascist state all major industry is nationalized, however unlike communism, the Capitalistic concepts of hard work and innovation are encouraged and rewarded. Labor unions, the bain of Capitalism, are simply incorporated into the state. This is achieved by being highly compartmentalized, and controlling every aspect of business and labor; hence the term “totalitarianism”; the compartmentalized (or departmentalized) of the Italian fascists regime was divided into numerous "syndicates", that had unilateral control over their particular aspect of the economy. "In Italy there are organizations of employees and employers called syndicates, corresponding to the unions and trade associations of other countries...Through a hierarchy of organizations, all syndicates are united in a national confederations...standing for the main branches of economic activity; industry, agriculture, commerce, banking, transportation and Navigation." Do We Want Facism?   A fascist government is authoritarian and reactionary; any impediment to production or the health of the state is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly. In most fascist states there is some form of indoctrination through education and the media. "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people."1

Fascism embraces the the worst from both the left and right. From the right you get a Nationalistic, chauvinistic, male centered society, where multiculturalism is believed to weaken the state and homosexuality a crime. On the left, individualism is an anathema, as all are beholding to the state. Further Eugenics has found a high water mark in Fascist states, as it emphasizes the belief that the strong and healthy must assert themselves and eliminate the weak and sickly. This also extended to the aged, as euthanasia has been encouraged so one does not burden family or the state.

So how does Obama stack up to a suspicious citizenry. Well we do have a charismatic leader who has promised fundamental change. We have a weakening economy that needs to be pulled up by it's boot straps. Obama has concentrated on the middle class, made comments saying he is in favor of single payer government run healthcare. He was made comments that end of life counselings is needed so the aged and sick will not be a burden on their family and the healthcare system. We have also seen the Nationalism of the auto industry and “loans” with Nationalized type strings, given to our nations banks and Investment Institutions. Obama has made a cornerstone of his administration, what he calls a Civilian National Security Force. This force is designed as a state run organization to promote state service. What has become worrisome however, is Obama's use of the NEA (National Endowment of the Arts) to promote his agenda and now the EIF (Entertainment Industry Foundation) to convince Hollywood to include “state service propaganda “ in your favorite TV show. While state service sounds fairly benign, it makes one wonder; Now that Obama has his foot in the door, what other kind of propaganda will we see? There are also the 31 Czars in the Obama Administration, which seems to show a high level of compartmentalization. Finally we are seeing the Presidents attack on talk radio and attempt to silence Fox News. What's down right scary about this, it follows that pattern of almost every dictatorship, fascists or not, to silence dissenting opinions.This is a small portion from a book about the rise of fascism from the prospective of the German citizenry; book is called "They Thought They Were Free"; but it is as true today as it was then.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if he people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it."

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

1 Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions

2 They Though They Were Free; The Germans 1933-45

3 Do We Want Fascism?