Wednesday 10 January 2018

Glenn Greenwald: Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced (Apr. 27, 2013)

Bradley Manning is off limits at SF Gay Pride parade, but corporate sleaze is embraced 
A seemingly trivial controversy reveals quite a bit about pervasive political values 

by GLENN GREENWALD, The Guardian, 27 April 2013 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/27/bradley-manning-sf-gay-pride?commentpage=1 

News reports yesterday indicated that Bradley Manning, widely known to 
be gay, had been selected to be one of the Grand Marshals of the 
annual San Francisco gay pride parade, named by the LGBT Pride 
Celebration Committee. When the predictable backlash instantly ensued, 
the president of the Board of SF Pride, Lisa L Williams, quickly 
capitulated, issuing a cowardly, imperious statement that has to be 
read to be believed. 

Williams proclaimed that "Manning will not be a grand marshal in this 
year's San Francisco Pride celebration" and termed his selection "a 
mistake". She blamed it all on a "staff person" who prematurely made 
the announcement based on a preliminary vote, and she assures us all 
that the culprit "has been disciplined": disciplined. She then accuses 
Manning of "actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and 
women in uniform": a substance-free falsehood originally spread by top 
US military officials which has since been decisively and extensively 
debunked, even by some government officials (indeed, it's the US 
government itself, not Manning, that is guilty of "actions which 
placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform"). And 
then, in my favorite part of her statement, Williams decreed to all 
organization members that "even the hint of support" for Manning's 
action - even the hint - "will not be tolerated by the leadership of 
San Francisco Pride". Will not be tolerated. 

I originally had no intention of writing about this episode, but the 
more I discovered about it, the more revealing it became. So let's 
just consider a few of the points raised by all of this. 

First, while even a hint of support for Manning will not be tolerated, 
there is a long roster of large corporations serving as the event's 
sponsors who are welcomed with open arms. The list is here. It 
includes AT&T and Verizon, the telecom giants that enabled the illegal 
warrantless eavesdropping on US citizens by the Bush administration 
and its NSA, only to get retroactively immunized from Congress and 
thus shielded from all criminal and civil liability (including a 
lawsuit brought in San Francisco against those corporations by their 
customers who were illegally spied on). Last month, AT&T was fined by 
OSHA for failing to protect one of its employees who was attacked, was 
found by the FCC last year to have overcharged customers by secretly 
switching them to plans they didn't want, and is now being sued by the 
US government for "allegedly bill[ing] the government improperly for 
services designed for the deaf and hard-of-hearing who place calls by 
typing messages over the web." 


The list of SF Pride sponsors also includes Bank of America, now being 
sued for $1 billion by the US government for allegedly engaging in a 
systematic scheme of mortgage fraud which the US Attorney called 
"spectacularly brazen in scope". Just last month, the same SF Pride 
sponsor received a record fine for ignoring a court order and instead 
trying to collect mortgage payments from bankrupt homeowners to which 
it was not entitled. Earlier this month, SF-Pride-sponsoring Bank of 
America paid $2.4 billion to settle shareholder allegations that Bank 
executives "failed to disclose information about losses at Merrill 
Lynch and bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees before the brokerage 
was acquired by Bank of America in January 2009 for $18.5 billion." 

Another beloved SF Pride sponsor, Wells Fargo, is also being "sued by 
the US for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages over claims the 
bank made reckless mortgage loans that caused losses for a federal 
insurance program when they defaulted". Last year, Wells Fargo was 
fined $3.1 million by a federal judge for engaging in conduct that 
court called "highly reprehensible" relating to its persecution of a 
struggling homeowner. In 2011, the bank was fined by the US government 
"for allegedly pushing borrowers with good credit into expensive 
mortgages and falsifying loan applications." 

Also in Good Standing with the SF Pride board: Clear Channel, the 
media outlet owned by Bain Capital that broadcasts the radio programs 
of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck; a pension fund is suing 
this SF Pride sponsor for making cheap, below-market loans to its 
struggling parent company. The health care giant Kaiser Permanente, 
another proud SF Pride sponsor, is currently under investigation by 
California officials for alleged massive privacy violations in the 
form of recklessly disclosing 300,000 patient records. 


So apparently, the very high-minded ethical standards of Lisa L 
Williams and the SF Pride Board apply only to young and powerless Army 
Privates who engage in an act of conscience against the US war 
machine, but instantly disappear for large corporations and banks that 
hand over cash. What we really see here is how the largest and most 
corrupt corporations own not just the government but also the culture. 
Even at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, once an iconic symbol of 
cultural dissent and disregard for stifling peities, nothing can 
happen that might offend AT&T and the Bank of America. The minute 
something even a bit deviant takes place (as defined by standards 
imposed by America's political and corporate class), even the SF Gay 
Pride Parade must scamper, capitulate, apologize, and take an oath of 
fealty to their orthodoxies (we adore the military, the state, and 
your laws). And, as usual, the largest corporate factions are 
completely exempt from the strictures and standards applied to the 
marginalized and powerless. Thus, while Bradley Manning is persona non 
grata at SF Pride, illegal eavesdropping telecoms, scheming banks, and 
hedge-fund purveryors of the nation's worst right-wing agitprop are 
more than welcome. 

Second, the authoritarian, state-and-military-revering mentality 
pervading Williams' statement is striking. It isn't just the imperious 
decree that "even a hint of support" for Manning "will not be 
tolerated", though that is certainly creepy. Nor is it the weird 
announcement that the wrongdoer "has been disciplined". Even worse is 
the mindless embrace of the baseless claims of US military officials 
(that Manning "placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in 
uniform") along with the supremely authoritarian view that any actions 
barred by the state are, ipso facto, ignoble and wrong. Conduct can be 
illegal and yet still be noble and commendable: see, for instance, 
Daniel Ellsberg, or most of the leaders of the civil rights movement 
in the US. Indeed, acts of civil disobedience and conscience by people 
who risk their own interests to battle injustices are often the most 
commendable acts. Equating illegal behavior with ignominious behavior 
is the defining mentality of an authoritarian - and is particularly 
notable coming from what was once viewed as a bastion of liberal 
dissent. 

But the more one learns about the parties involved here, the less 
surprising it becomes. According to her biography, Williams "organized 
satellite offices for the Obama campaign" and also works for various 
Democratic politicians. It was President Obama, of course, who so 
notoriously decreed Bradley Manning guilty in public before his trial 
by military officers serving under Obama even began, and whose 
administration was found by the UN's top torture investigator to have 
abused him and is now so harshly prosecuting him. It's anything but 
surprising that a person who was a loyal Obama campaign aide finds 
Bradley Manning anathema while adoring big corporations and banks 
(which funded the Obama campaign and who, in the case of telecoms, 
Obama voted to immunize). 

What we see here is how even many of the most liberal precincts in 
America are now the leading spokespeople for and loyalists to state 
power as a result of their loyalty to President Obama. Thus do we have 
the President of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade sounding exactly 
like the Chairman of the Joints Chief, or Sarah Palin, or gay war- 
loving neocons, in depicting any meaningful opposition to the National 
Security State as the supreme sin. I'd be willing to bet large amounts 
of money that Williams has never condemned the Obama administration's 
abuse of Manning in detention or its dangerously radical prosecution 
of him for "aiding the enemy". I have no doubt that the people who did 
all of that would be showered with gratitude by Parade officials if 
they attended. In so many liberal precincts in the Age of Obama - even 
now including the SF Gay Pride parade - the federal government, its 
military, and its federal prosecutors are to be revered and celebrated 
but not criticized; only those who oppose them are villains. 

Third, when I wrote several weeks ago about the remarkable shift in 
public opinion on gay equality, I noted that this development is less 
significant than it seems because the cause of gay equality poses no 
real threat to elite factions or to how political and economic power 
in the US are distributed. If anything, it bolsters those power 
structures because it completely and harmlessly assimilates a 
previously excluded group into existing institutions and thus 
incentivizes them to accommodate those institutions and adopt their 
mindset. This event illustrates exactly what I meant. 

While some of the nation's most corrupt corporations are welcome to 
fly their flag over the parade, consider what Manning - for whom "even 
a hint of support will not be tolerated" - actually did. His leak 
revealed all sorts of corruption, deceit and illegality on the part of 
the world's most powerful corporations. They led to numerous 
journalism awards for WikiLeaks. Even Bill Keller, the former 
Executive Editor of the New York Times who is a harsh WikiLeaks 
critic, credited those leaks with helping to spark the Arab Spring, 
the greatest democratic revolution the world has seen in decades. 
Multiple media accounts describe how the cables documenting atrocities 
committed by US troops in Iraq prevented the Malaki government from 
allowing US troops to stay beyond the agreed-to deadline: i.e., helped 
end the Iraq war by thwarting Obama's attempts to prolong it. For all 
of that, Manning was selected by Guardian readers as the 2012 Person 
of the Year, while former Army Lt. Dan Choi said yesterday: 

As we move forward as a country, we need truth in order to gain 
justice, you can't have justice without the whole truth . . . So what 
[Manning did as a gay American, as a gay soldier, he stood for 
integrity, I am proud of him." 

But none of those vital benefits matter to authoritarians. That's 
because authoritarians, by definition, believe in the overarching 
Goodness of institutions of power, and believe the only bad acts come 
from those who challenge or subvert that power. Bad acts aren't 
committed by the National Security State or Surveillance State; they 
are only committed by those who oppose them. If a person's actions 
threaten power factions or are deemed prohibited by them, then Good 
Authoritarians will reflexively view the person as evil and will be 
eager to publicly disassociate themselves from such individuals. Or, 
as Williams put it, "even the hint of support" for Manning "will not 
be tolerated", and those who deviate from this decree will be 
"disciplined". 


Even the SF Gay Pride Parade is now owned by and beholden to the 
nation's largest corporations, subject to their dictates. Those who 
run the event are functionaries of, loyalists to, the nation's most 
powerful political officials. That's how this parade was so seamlessly 
transformed from orthodoxy-challenging, individualistic and creative 
cultural icon into yet another pile of obedient apparatchiks that 
spout banal slogans doled out by the state while viciously scorning 
those who challenge them. Yes, there will undoubtedly still be 
exotically-dressed drag queens, lesbian motorcycle clubs, and groups 
proudly defined by their unusual sexual proclivities participating in 
the parade, but they'll be marching under a Bank of America banner and 
behind flag-waving fans of the National Security State, the US 
President, and the political party that dominates American politics 
and its political and military institutions. Yet another edgy, 
interesting, creative, independent event has been degraded and 
neutered into a meek and subservient ritual that must pay homage to 
the nation's most powerful entities and at all costs avoid offending 
them in any way. 

It's hardly surprising that someone who so boldly and courageously 
opposes the US war machine is demonized and scorned this way. Daniel 
Ellsberg was subjected to the same attacks before he was transformed 
many years later into a liberal hero (though Ellsberg had the good 
fortune to be persecuted by a Republican rather than Democratic 
President and thus, even back then, had some substantial support; come 
to think of it, Ellsberg lives in San Francisco: would expressions of 
support for him be tolerated?). But the fact that such lock-step, heel- 
clicking, military-mimicking behavior is now coming from the SF Gay 
Pride Parade of all places is indeed noteworthy: it reflects just how 
pervasive this authoritarian rot has become. 

Corporate corruption and sleaze 

For a bit more on the dominance of corporate sleaze and corruption in 
our political culture, see the first few paragraphs of this 
extraordinary Politico article on a new book about DC culture.... 
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/mark-leibovich-book-this-town-90660.html?hp=t1 

...and this Washington Post article detailing the supreme annual 
convergence of political, media and corporate sleaze called "the White 
House Correspondents' Dinner", to be held this weekend. .... 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/white-house-correspondents-association-dinner-isnt-costly-but-the-parties-are/2013/04/25/335da104-acfc-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html 

No comments:

Post a Comment