OPINION:

Beware the Next Wave of Huns, Locusts, and Communist Conspirators

When can we drop our guard?

If the answer is never, then the peace dividend we all hankered for after the demise of the USSR was only a myth--the kind of political statement we don't call an outright lie. A cynical view might see this new scourge as not really new, but simply brought out of the background scenery into the klieg lights as the latest dramatic devise to keep the economic engines of war fired up. However, beyond cynicism there are far more fundamental causes for the failure of our leadership to anticipate the symptoms (the terrorist acts), or to properly identify their genesis.

Of course, it is easy to lay all the blame on fundamental, fanatical Islamists, but that is about as helpful as blaming the cold war on the worldwide communist worker movement. To this day, the same people who hold leadership positions in the war on terrorism have concluded that freedom and capitalism defeated communism and oppression. This, despite the conclusion of most historians that the world never faced an epidemic spread of monolithic communism, but, rather, scores of nationalistic movements, rebellions, internal civil conflicts, and struggles against neo-colonialism.

The USSR turned out to be a paper tiger, inflated to huge proportions by propagandistic rhetoric emanating, in good part, from tainted intelligence or the misuse thereof by the politicians. Iraq is deja vu with the lies uncovered much more quickly. At their strongest, the USSR was the greatest competitor to the US for domination of 3rd world markets. The whole world was divided into those under communist "influence" and those under US influence or, more broadly, Western influence.

China aspired to be a player in this global chess match, but was never more than a regional dominator. They may now, of course, have greater pretensions, but in a regime arguably more secretive than ours, it is hard to know.

Now we are told that all this traditional conflict of the super powers has been replaced by a few fanatics, operating in cells, that desire nothing but to propagate a reign of terror throughout the civilized world, and all this in the name of a religion they misinterpret, misuse, and malign in its name. It is very likely that our President sees the conflict in proto-religious terms when he calls on the Almighty for strength.

Black and white, yellow and red--it is all spoken in primary colors, but in the real world it is painted in all shades of nature--a rainbow of complexity and connectiveness. Terrorism is the word our administration finds useful for anything or anybody who is not with the program. This is signaling to the corporate world that they too can use the war against terrorism to their own advantage. Maurice Greenberg, the CEO of the world's largest insurance company, AIG, recently called trial lawyers "terrorists" and, apparently, will make no apology for this blanket slur. I'm sure he would probably exempt his own legions of lawyers from this appellation, but who knows? He is reputed to be a tough guy--he could probably audition for "The Apprentice."

This intemperate language arose, presumably, due to the fact that AIG is obliged to pay claims when the corporations they insure violate environmental regulations and safety procedures and put citizens' lives and workers' well-being at risk. Could it be that he misses the big picture that insurers are set up for the sole purpose of paying claims by collecting premiums from the many to pay for the mistakes and misdeeds of the few?

At their best, insurance companies consult with their insureds to reduce risk and change bad practices. Their mission is not to hamstring or pervert the court system so that their clients and customers go unpunished, is it? This will not serve to coerce good behaviors or even hold down insurance costs. But it is, in fact, a blatant attempt to influence politically the shifting of societal costs to someone else. Those someones, of course, are, more often than not, taxpayers and consumers, not the corporations who produce harmful products and shelter their income to avoid taxes. Mr. Greenberg is afraid of the courts, but his company will be the first in Iraq to set up a privatized insurance system in the vast wasteland of that formerly socialistic country. But don't bet he won't be looking for some federal reinsurance to protect from the downside potentials until things are stabilized and money can start flowing into off-shore subsidiaries.

So far the public does not see corporations and their regulatory enablers as 'terrorists," but then it is best to be precise in the use of language if one wishes to remain "civil." Mr. Greenberg is leading the charge for "tort reform" and has a strong ally in the White House. The only thing saving us from a deregulation apocalypse is that most unrepresentative of bodies, the US Senate. Despite its strong corporate ties, it can still muster a veto-proof minority to block atrocious legislation. However, if Republicans gain again in the 2004 general election, the game may be over. The real terrorists then will have succeeded beyond their wildest imaginings (if we are to accept the conventional definitions).They will have turned a pretty good representative republic with some democratic leanings, into a one-party, militaristic, totalitarian state which will protect its corporate kleptocracy and exploit its own citizens along with all the peoples of conquered and submissive countries around the planet.

And you thought all this business in Iraq was terrorists trying to embarrass Mr. Bush and cost him re-election! Why would they be so stupid?

Editor's note: Examples of how purported enemies of any kind are being portrayed as 'terrorists' by members of the current administration are easy to find. Here is one we chanced to come upon just this morning (4/26/04):

Said Bush spokesperson Karen Hughes, equating pro-choice persons with pro-terrorist's [Daily Kos, 04/26/04]: "...the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."