Defining the 'banana republic':
encyclopedia.com:
ba·nan·a re·pub·lic • n. chiefly derog. a small nation, esp. in Central America, dependent on one crop or the influx of foreign capital.
Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
banana republic
Function:
noun
Date:
1904
: a small dependent country usually of the tropics ; especially : one run despotically
Princeton:
Noun
* S: (n) banana republic (a small country (especially in Central America) that is politically unstable and whose economy is dominated by foreign companies and depends on one export (such as bananas))
Opponents of various governments are frequently accusing those in power of being a part of, or in fact creating, a banana republic, and especially when it relates so some real or suspected usurpation of personal rights. The description has become such a knee-jerk reaction among the malcontent (or shall we say 'disenfranchised'?) that it's rarely taken seriously anymore.
President George W. Bush was
accused of being the leader of such a republic and
colorfully compared to and portrayed by a chimp. Most of that was confined to the liberal bloggers and supporters of Gore, Kerry, Dean, and some political cartoons... all of whom to this day pound their chests insisting that President Bush stole both of his elections.
Lately though, I've seen more frequent mention of the term in conjunction with the current president and his administration, and not just by conservative bloggers. Take a gander:
Forbes.com:
Comandante Obama
Peter Robinson, 02.27.09, 12:01 AM ET
"But you don't understand," the Colombian said. "We've seen this before."
"He's right, my good friend," the Cuban said. "We Latin Americans know the pattern. Believe me we do."
The American tried to shrug off the Latin Americans' warning. To his consternation, he found that he couldn't. Peron, Fidel, now Chavez, they insisted. The emergence of misrule, corruption and economic stagnation in Latin American nations follows a particular sequence or progression. Now the sequence was unfolding in the United States.
"It starts with a cult of personality," the Cuban explained. "One man declares himself the jefe, the caudillo, the big leader."...
..."After the cult of personality," the Colombian explained, "what comes next is nationalization." Fidel had nationalized the Cuban sugar mills, Chavez the Banco de Venezuela, Morales the Bolivian oil and gas industries....
..."The last step?" asked the Cuban. "Censorship. It won't be obvious at first--they're always too smart for that. But it will come."
"Never," replied the American. "We have the First Amendment."
"And soon enough," the Cuban said, smiling sadly, "you will also have the Fairness Doctrine."
Does it seems so amusing still? One assumes the 'Cuban' and the 'Colombian" would know of what they speak due to the examples set by their own governments. The pattern is historic and predictable.
More:
A cult of personality, nationalization and censorship.
"We still have the Constitution," the American told himself after the conversation had ended. "A Fidel? A Peron? In this country? Ridiculous." Yet he found that one image kept coming to mind: that of the 2 million people who had thronged the Mall on Inauguration Day, gazed upon a charismatic leader and chanted "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!"
Four years from now, the American thought, voters may very well remove the new president from office. In certain ways, however, he has already made this great nation look like a banana republic.
Four years? Most of us are focusing on 2 years' time and the Congressional races in hopes of widening the margin so that we can prevent or even dare we dream overturn some of the damage that's already been done by both the president and Congress. Look back on some of the moves made on the economic chessboard in relation to "bettering the economy" in relation to the following industries: mortgages, autos, banking. And how many of those moves were forced to those who didn't ask for it? Let's look at the example of the AIG bonuses written into the stimulus bill by Chris Dodd, approved by the Democratic Congress and rejected wholly by the Republican Congress:
Powerline asks: Are We A Banana Republic?:
I'm stupefied to find that some people are defending the constitutionality of Nancy Pelosi's discriminatory, confiscatory and retroactive tax on people who receive bonus income from companies that got TARP money. I would have considered it a bright line rule that the government can't identify a class of unpopular people and impose a special tax on them. What's next? A 100% income tax on registered Republicans, retroactive to last year? If Pelosi's bill passes muster, why not?
One theory, presumably, is that since the government is contributing TARP money it can put whatever strings it wants on that money. (Including, I guess, strings imposed after the fact that would deprive employees of agreed-upon consideration for work they've already performed.) But that theory has been rejected in a variety of contexts. The government cannot condition its spending on a relinquishment of constitutional rights. Here's a thought experiment: how about putting a condition (retroactively, of course) on TARP money that says no employee of any bank that receives such money (or his spouse) can get an abortion? Would Nancy Pelosi think that's constitutional?
Wells Fargo didn't want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi's proposed tax. Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it's included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.
If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution--no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny. As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi's proposed confiscatory tax--total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions--is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry--imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation--then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.
What happens when the prevailing agenda "Take this Change or Else" makes it way as we've already been warned is coming to the health and oil industries? Doctors may find themselves unable to refuse government "financial aid" (i.e. control) much as Wells Fargo did. And the whole 'evil AIG' uprising sort of reeks of test weather balloons that the administration seems to be sending up through Congress. Like the mileage tax. Or the fema camps. Or their compulsory volunteerism. Just various brainstorms that were floated out to the people much like a Rasmussen poll.
As
Mark Steyn notes:
Any sentient being dumb enough to fall for this AIG huffin’ an’ a-puffin’ from Barry, Barney, Doddy, and the gang is a fool who deserves the vaporization of his assets that the national political class is lining up for him. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the $165 million in bonuses is less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion budget. The massive expansion of government the president is planning is forever, and will ensure you that end your days in what Peggy Noonan calls “post-prosperity America.” More immediately, what message do you send to the world when legal contracts can be abrogated by retrospective confiscatory bills of attainder? You think that’s going to get anyone investing in America again?
The investor class invests in jurisdictions where the rules are clear and stable. Right now, Washington is telling the planet: In our America, there are no rules. Got a legally binding contract? We’ll tear it up. Refuse to surrender the dough? We’ll pass a law targeted at you, yes, you, Mr. Beau Nuss of 27 Plutocrat Gardens, Fatcatville. If you want a banana republic on steroids, this is great news.
It's class warfare on a national scale gleefully sanctioned by the leader of the free world and his congressional comrades. Hope and Change for the masses: one townhall meeting at a time (never mind that
attendees of the townhall meetings were campaign backers). The
unemployment numbers keep rising to historic highs, but
he only inherited this mess, right?
Not all is bad in the working world though:
If anything there's been a drop in the unemployment numbers for one industry:
AP: Economy Causing Topless Dancers
Never mind the bad news from the AFP, here is the latest on the recession’s purported impact on the illicit sex front, from a tear-soaked Associated Press:
More women needing cash go from jobless to topless
CHICAGO – As a bartender and trainer at a national restaurant chain, Rebecca Brown earned a couple thousand dollars in a really good week. Now, as a dancer at Chicago’s Pink Monkey gentleman’s club, she makes almost that much in one good night.
The tough job market is prompting a growing number of women across the country to dance in strip clubs, appear in adult movies or pose for magazines like Hustler.
Employers across the adult entertainment industry say they’re seeing an influx of applications from women who, like Brown, are attracted by the promise of flexible schedules and fast cash. Many have college degrees and held white-collar jobs until the economy soured.
"You’re seeing a lot more beautiful women who are eligible to do so many other things," said Gus Poulos, general manager of New York City’s Sin City gentleman’s club. He said he got 85 responses in just one day to a recent job posting on Craigslist…
In this economy, "desperate measures are becoming far more acceptable," said Jonathan Alpert, a New York City-based psychotherapist who’s had clients who worked in adult entertainment…
Dancers at the upscale Rick’s Caberet [sic] clubs in New York City and Miami can make $100,000 to $300,000 a year — in cash — even with the economic downturn, club spokesman Allan Priaulx said.
Priaulx said 20 to 30 women a week are applying for jobs at the New York club, double the number of a year ago.
Would Josephine Baker roll over in her grave? Or instead update her famous banana dance for the occasion of America's emergence as a banana republic?
