Worries of the Corporate Elite
[Received last night, 11 p.m.]
Russ, I'm pretty much written out, but a couple of things:
--To say that corporations rather than the government are driving economic
policy isn't to say that they have absolute power. After all, even dictators
have to worry about justifying their policies, hence the centrality of
propaganda to fascist and Communist regimes, and can't do everything they want;
there is always the danger of provoking a rebellion. Of course, in the United
States (and other Western countries), the corporate elite has to worry about
public sentiment, expressed not only in elections but in organized opposition
(however weak, there still is some) from the labor movement, the environmental
movement, etc. It has taken 25 years since the first big push toward austerity
and deregulation in the '70s to seriously erode the liberal welfare state, and
there is still major resistance to the privatization of Social Security,
significant erosion of Medicare, and so on. But corporate economic and
political pressure has steadily pushed public policy in this direction,
regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office.
--The term "hate crime" doesn't get at what I think is the real issue: that
certain kinds of crimes are not just aimed at a particular victim but are meant
to intimidate or "send a message" to a whole class of people, whether to stay
out of certain neighborhoods, hide their sexuality, stop performing abortions,
or whatever. In other words such crimes are a form of political terrorism. They
are often committed by groups--the classic example is lynching. It seems clear
to me that this kind of intimidation should be recognized for what it is and
specifically punished. The question is how best to do it. The problem with the
idea of hate crime, aside from the fact that violent crime is inherently
hateful, as you say, is that it doesn't distinguish between deliberate
terrorism and acts that may be motivated in whole or in part by bigotry but
don't have a purposeful agenda behind them. Rather, I would define the crime as
intimidating citizens from exercising their civil rights--which refers to
behavior rather than thought or emotion--and require evidence of intent and
premeditation. I would make it a distinct crime that would have to be charged
(and proved) separately from charges of murder, assault, etc.
Till tomorrow,
Ellen
