Bill Moyers: America, the Empire of Consumption

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think the clearest statement of what I value is found in the preamble to the Constitution. There is nothing in the preamble to the Constitution which defines the purpose of the United States of America as remaking the world in our image, which I view as a fool's errand. There is nothing in the preamble of the Constitution that ever imagined that we would embark upon an effort, as President Bush has defined it, to transform the Greater Middle East. This region of the world that incorporates something in order of 1.4 billion people.

I believe that the framers of the Constitution were primarily concerned with focusing on the way we live here, the way we order our affairs. To try to ensure that as individuals, we can have an opportunity to pursue our, perhaps, differing definitions of freedom, but also so that, as a community, we could live together in some kind of harmony. And that future generations would also be able to share in those same opportunities.

The big problem, it seems to me, with the current crisis in American foreign policy, is that unless we do change our ways, the likelihood that our children, our grandchildren, the next generation is going to enjoy the opportunities that we've had, is very slight, because we're squandering our power. We are squandering our wealth. In many respects, to the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we're also going to squander our freedom because imperial policies, which end up enhancing the authority of the imperial president, also end up providing imperial presidents with an opportunity to compromise freedom even here at home. And we've seen that since 9/11.

we are screwed .. too long gobbling up finite resources, crapping out toxins and pollution, no plans for the future... now we must rent remote storage areas for all the accumulated useless crap we buy from Mal-Wart.

USA had crapped in it's own mess kit

i'd have to see Moyers' house before i could give him any credibility. surely he doesn't live in an unfurnished cave?

Iria wrote:

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I think the clearest statement of what I value is found in the preamble to the Constitution. There is nothing in the preamble to the Constitution which defines the purpose of the United States of America as remaking the world in our image, which I view as a fool's errand. There is nothing in the preamble of the Constitution that ever imagined that we would embark upon an effort, as President Bush has defined it, to transform the Greater Middle East. This region of the world that incorporates something in order of 1.4 billion people.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution were primarily concerned with focusing on the way we live here, the way we order our affairs. To try to ensure that as individuals, we can have an opportunity to pursue our, perhaps, differing definitions of freedom, but also so that, as a community, we could live together in some kind of harmony. And that future generations would also be able to share in those same opportunities.
The big problem, it seems to me, with the current crisis in American foreign policy, is that unless we do change our ways, the likelihood that our children, our grandchildren, the next generation is going to enjoy the opportunities that we've had, is very slight, because we're squandering our power. We are squandering our wealth. In many respects, to the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we're also going to squander our freedom because imperial policies, which end up enhancing the authority of the imperial president, also end up providing imperial presidents with an opportunity to compromise freedom even here at home. And we've seen that since 9/11.

I know exactly what you mean, I haven't left the house for yrs. I'm afraid i'll be arrested and sent to one of those secret detention camps. Thank god, Obama will free me on Jan. 9th. I'm getting really pale. My ass is whiter than rice.

thanks for the two wonderful comments above. I can suggest two additional sources of information and discussion on this subject. One is a book by Benjamin Barber, a college professor. He is brilliant, and most of his books are interesting in some way or other. I think the one on over-consumption is his most recent. He says our emphasis is out of balance -- too much on consumption, and not enough on a happy, balanced life. He is serious. The funny approach (although his intent is serious) is the Reverend Billy of the Church of Stop Shopping. I think you can find him on youtube. I saw him on TV; he is hilarious and sincere and wise, in a very light-hearted and theatrical way.

I meant l and 2, of course. as for 3, it is funny. But the issue is not all-consumption, it is over-consumption, out of balance with one's needs and one's ability to pay, and the other things that contribute to happiness in life, especially peace of mind, and the pleasures of feeling one has enough and not feeling driven to get more and more, however unneeded and unenjoyed.

if bushy, bushy is a conservative, right-winger or whatever, he is the funniest one I have ever seen on topix!

Interesting post, but why criticise middle America when the Government spends our next generation into poverty:$3000 per foot for a border fence,$380 billion for institutional banks,$3 trillion for adventures in Iraq...and Bill Moyer gets worked up over $800 billion spent by 200 million people ($4000 per capita)?

Leave it to Iria to post a HUGE part of a left biased NPR article as the summary.

C'mon Iria, your bias is well known. Post a paragraph or two, like most "editors" instead of 4,000 words.

While we are talking about massive consumption, why do we talk about the 1/2 billion dollars Obama is likely to spend on his campaign.

How is it the "man of the people" who promises "change we can live with" is out doing all the establishment people at their own game?

From the Washington Post:

"Based on the figures the Obama campaign made public yesterday, the senator from Illinois has now raised about $400 million in his campaign for the White House, and his top aides believe funds could come in at an even faster rate when voters are paying closer attention to the contest in September and October."

From Rolling Stone Magazine:

Over the summer, the Obama camp has relentlessly pushed the notion that its record fundraising is mainly the result of small online donations. The first presidential candidate to raise so much money that he could afford to eschew the spending limits that would be imposed if he accepted federal matching funds, Obama claims that he opted out of public funding so that he could have a campaign "truly funded by the American people." And indeed, he has a record number of small donors, with some 45 percent of his campaign cash coming from contributions smaller than $200.

Which is a great percentage — but it's only eight points better than John Kerry in 2004 and only 14 points better than George Bush that same year. In truth, Obama is still raising tons of money from big corporate donors. In June alone, as Obama was raking in more than $30 million from small donors, he also bagged $6 million in a single fundraiser at Ethel Kennedy's home in Virginia and another $5 million at an event in Hollywood. But time and time again, you see Obama aides boasting about how the day of the big-dollar donor is over. "More people are involved, and I think that necessarily dilutes the impact of any individual — which is probably a good thing," one prominent Obama supporter recently declared. This staunch champion of the small donor happened to be none other than James Rubin, son of former Goldman Sachs co-chairman Bob Rubin.

Obama's decision to embrace Clinton's moneymen coincided with his decision to attend a public forum on economic policy with an A list of Clinton-era economic advisors, including Rubin and Corzine. "The message is that he's going to be a friend to Wall Street, just as Bill Clinton was a friend to Wall Street," says Pollin. "Wall Street will want to be at the head of the table."

A big chunk of the $1 billion in cash that will be spent on the presidential race this year represents Wall Street's desire to make sure that both candidates can be counted on to make the short-term bailouts large and passionate, and the reforms gentle and halfhearted.

"They want to make sure there's socialism when they need it — bailouts — and capitalism when they need that," says Pollin.

What is the point of this article? Consumerism is a right wing plot? How about taxes and entitlements as the real causes of bankruptcy of the middle class.

Pelosi owns and operates, without criticism, a winery, health spa and five star restaurant that is not unionized. Now there's consumerism! And you can't take public transportation to get there. The parking lot only takes gas guzzlers.

please encourage busy busy to be funny, he's the same-old on right-wing substance, but he is a breath of fresh air in conservative circles when he is truly funny and not mean or dogmatic. As to Lance Winslow, I have seen your comments in several places, and have usually thought they were interesting, often helpful, sometimes brilliant, and on occasion I have agreed. I approve of the second half of your comment -- the part that puts it in context. But the first part seems to minimize the dangers of over-consumption and too much debt by Americans as individuals. We need to stop buying so much stuff from China and other countries which we enrich and enable to be more financially aggressive in the world and in the US - buying up US property and resources. We should buy what we need, and invest in what will produce benefits for us later - such as good education, skills training, tools of a trade, maybe even a small entrepreneurship business where we can use skills in our own communitites. But to throw money away on l) cigarettes, which is a negative investment, it will cost us and the country more later, in bad health and medical care, 2) too much alcohol, if it leads to drunken driving and /or alcoholism, which are also negative in impact, 3) too much useless stuff from countries that may not wish us well, which is also a negative investment, by enriching those countries and giving them more scope to be world players, perhaps to US national and American citizen disadvantage, 4) defective stuff, poisonous stuff, low-quality stuff, which provides clutter and does not make life better, at best, and is dangerous and maybe life-threatening at worst, and 5) mindless distracting stuff, that leads us toward being mere consumers, and not all-around human beings, with skills, friendships, happy families, leisure time with interests and hobbies, time for reading and learning and thinking and becoming better citizens through involvement in the community, etc. I would bet that you would agree with me on this, Lance, in that if people did more learning and thinking, there would be more chance that they would agree with you on the worries you rightly bring to our attention in the second part of your comment, and in other comments you make! There is a sort of anti-intellectual, anti-being informed, even anti-caring about the world, streak in America that is very dangerous. Constant distractions with stuff and mindless activity that is not even really fun, and often dangerous, uninspected events, music and dance areas without adequate exits, etc - that undermines the sense of any ability to be alone, or with thoughtful friends, and encourages mindlessness as an approach to life itself, and not merely as an occasioinal distraction which can be happy and joyful -- like watching some of the Olympic events. Yes, I refer to sports addicts, and soap opera and romance novel addicts, and dirty-jokes telling and even endlessly exchanging stupid insults while commenting on topix addicts. Things people can't stop doing, and/or do not put in balance with the rest of their lives.

the NPR person is confusing - looks like an attack from the right, no it's an attack from the left! maybe it is mostly just an attack from anywhere and everywhere? same with major contributor. any old criticism of a Democrat or a progressive will do - no matter that you might defend the same behavior if a Republican or a conservative did it? is that what you really are all about? or do you have some interesting world-view that is consistent, and a basis for equally principled criticism of politicians with differing ideologies, from differing parties, even in different countries? if you do, tell us - we can't wait for your well-thought out moral principles, to replace the petty sniping about details! Maybe you are Naderites, or Paul supporters, and have an alternative to offer? unlikely, but possible. I am not acquainted with enough of your comments to get what you are for, if anything.

Major Contributor wrote:

What is the point of this article? Consumerism is a right wing plot?

Well the point is that you can't continue to hemmorrhage indefinitely. You can't consume continuously without producing.

How about taxes and entitlements as the real causes of bankruptcy of the middle class.

Maybe because they are not the cause of your complaint.

Pelosi owns and operates, without criticism, a winery, health spa and five star restaurant that is not unionized.

So what? Don't winery's produce something?

Now there's consumerism!

But is it productive?

And you can't take public transportation to get there. The parking lot only takes gas guzzlers.

So what?

lest anyone think I only listen to one side, I report that this morning I listened to CSPAN interview with Mark Breziznski (sp- I think he is son of Ziggy Brizzy, I call him - not very respectful toward an Obama adviser is it? not a mindless agreement with Obama and all his advisers! I worry about some of them too, but it comes from my world-view, and is not sniping! it is based on specific policy concerns.). Then I listened to someone else I also did not know much about: Choate (sp- former VP candidate with Perot, I think. I thought Perot was rather nuts, but this guy had some very interesting, populist, documented, analytical things to say, and I paid attention and thought his points should be considered seriously -- anti-NAFTA, anti-too-much-foreign-ownershi p of US resources, not enough jobs for Americans, etc.) Some of this type rhetoric comes from Ron Paul supporters, too, and some from Naderites, and some from Democratic Senators and Congresspersons from high-unemployeement areas (especially Ohio), and some from populist politicians from whereever, who are more rooted in grass-roots politics and less atuned to and indebted to the big Wall Street interests. The Rolling Stone article annoyed me because if some of the concerns are well-founded, how do they compare with concerns about McCain's supporters and their even more dangerous interests (lobbyists for Columbia, Georgia, other countries, and for big corporations that are ripping off Americans in various ways, protected by the ruling Senate GOP minority of 41 or more who vote against Democratic attempts to help ordinary people, and especially poor people and people who have been victimized by a variety of big business and small-time crooks, oil, sub-primes, tobacco co's, asbestos manufacturers, etc.)(How many people know that it takes 60 votes out of the l00 Senators to accomplish anything if Mitch McConnell and gang oppose it?)Rolling Stone as quoted does not seem to offer any solutions, or any hope for reform. It is the typical far-left unaffiliated attack upon the progressives who work within the system and have to work with the laws as they stand, and econmic and political reality as it is. I knew this type of far-left extremist when I was in grad school in the 1960's; they lived on loud music, long and loud rallies and theatrical demonostrations, marijuana, and scatter-brained or dogmatic ultra-leftist rantings, with no practical solutions to offer that would have any chance of success. Some were even brilliant, up to a point, but ultimately useless. Unfortunately, the efoorts of many of them were counter-productive, in that they turned off the great American middle class, and made it more difficult for us (those who were for peace, and for Eugene McCarthy, for exampe) to work within the system to get real change. We did it as much despite them, as with any help from them. Even when I acknowledge some of their "facts," and agree with some of their analysis, and worry about some of the same dangers -- they were not part of the solution, they were too often a part of the problem - in short, disruptive influences with no plan to offer, and no vision of the future we could hope for and work for.)

thanks, erg: red wine in reasonable quantities, and with good healthy food, is good for us - except unfortunate folks with a gene for alcoholism. It is better that Nancy Pelosi have money from having a rich husband and a nice business, than in being for sale to the big money boys, like the Republican members of Congress who support bills benefitting certain big businesses (drug companies, for example) while negotiating deals to retire from Congress and go to work for those same companies! Yes, I refer to someone in particular. I think he was an ex-Southern Democrat, far to the right-wing of our party, who left to become a power in the GOP during its rule of the House from 1994 to 2006. Guy from La. Billy Tauzin.(not that I am a defender of all La. Democrats - but given the culture of the state, Mary Landrieu is probably the best that can be expected, and national Democrats cut her a lot of room by not criticizing her for voting for state interests and in accord with conservative state opinion, when she needs to do so.)

Moyers is one of my heroes, and I want to see very intelligent and informed conversation on this site, so please, progressives, give it your best. not bickering with the right-wing, but some thought about the topic itself, please! I like to read comments from the good guys, but am often disappointed when they get into back&forth with the nutty right-wing and use insults on their level -- very learned insults are OK! as long as there is substance, also.

Major Contributor wrote:

What is the point of this article? Consumerism is a right wing plot? How about taxes and entitlements as the real causes of bankruptcy of the middle class.
Pelosi owns and operates, without criticism, a winery, health spa and five star restaurant that is not unionized. Now there's consumerism! And you can't take public transportation to get there. The parking lot only takes gas guzzlers.

I love the BS the right wing buys into. As a nation we spend more on bombs and delivery systems that ALL industrilized nations in the world combined that means we spend more than the Evil Russians and the communist Chinese.Corporations like Raython Hughs Lockheed Martin get billions in tax subsidies while they only employ a tiny fraction of the population. But go ahead and demonize the left for trying to help the least fortunate in our society. Be like Jim Adkisson he is a poster child of the right wing mentality.

Some people get it,some dont,some "think" they can control nature,live by their own law.this is a form of madness.Be sure of one thing.All this will pass.Get ready for the ride.

Our mindset comes from the "God gave man dominion over the earth" school of thought. If we need it, get it. Cut it down, dam it up or dig it up. It is our right because God said so.