The Hightower Report

Weapons in the Name of Peace?

Hey, Bucko – stop whining about this sour economy, and start thinking about the plight of others.

For example: arms dealers. You've probably paid no attention to the hard fact that the global recession caused worldwide arms sales to plummet by 8.5% last year, pinching the profits of U.S. weapons pushers. The only saving grace in this downbeat news is that America's glorious arms industry did retain its position as the No. 1 supplier of weapons to the world. We still control nearly 40% of the global market, with Russia a distant second. But before you set off a mess of fireworks in celebration, note that U.S. sales in 2009 were down by more than $15 billion from the previous year.

On the up side, the developing world is still in a buying mood! Last year, such emerging nations as Brazil, Venezuela, Iraq, India, and Vietnam poured billions into purchases of military playthings that go boom. Again, U.S. dealers were the big winners, controlling a third of the arms trade in this robust market.

The greatest news for American purveyors of killing machines, however, is Iran. This rising Mideast power has spooked the U.S. and Israel, so, in the vague hope of countering Iran's growing punch, the White House and Congress are about to OK a blockbuster sale to the monarchical rulers of Saudi Arabia. Some $90 billion worth of top-line fighter jets, helicopters, naval armaments, and other sophisticated war machinery would go to the Saudis – the largest single sale of U.S. arms ever. The theory is that (somehow or other, maybe, possibly, sometime in the future) this escalation of military testosterone in the explosive Mideast might produce harmony.

Good luck with that. But, hey – if it jacks up profits for our arms dealers, what's not to like about it?

Conservatism or Crackpotism?

I'm at a loss for words, so I need your help.

Not so long ago, Republican officeholders in our country were conservatives, a political philosophy that encompasses the notion of conservation. Those Republicans wanted to conserve important things – like the public infrastructure, the rule of law, public education, and even our environment. During the last 30 years, though, voters in the GOP's primaries systematically pulled these classic conservatives from office, replacing them with right-wing, laissez-faire ideologues. These new-breed Republicans largely rejected our country's commitment to the common good, instead supporting privatization of government functions and tax favoritism for the corporate elite.

The media, however, made no linguistic adjustment to this fundamental change in philosophy, simply shifting the "conservative" label to the right-wingers. But if they can be called conservative, what the hell do we call the new new-breed Republicans who are presently displacing those politicos who displaced the actual conservatives?

This year, the Republican primary has gone from plain old right-wingism to right-wing crackpotism. In Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado, Delaware, New York, Kentucky, and elsewhere, many GOP nominees to Congress and other offices are further out than Pluto! "End Social Security," they rant. "Stop punishing BP," "Cut off unemployment benefits to jobless Americans," "Keep the government's hands off of our Medicare" ... and on and on. Instead of tea, I think these people's tea bags are filled with loco weed.

Once again, however, the media merely labels them "conservatives." Surely you can think of a better, more apt term. Send your suggestions to [email protected]. Best suggestion wins a free subscription to "The Hightower Lowdown."