Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Russ Smith and Ellen Willis

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516171819
from: Ellen Willis

Worries of the Corporate Elite

Posted Wednesday, Aug. 18, 1999, at 10:29 AM ET

[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

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516171819
from: Ellen Willis

Worries of the Corporate Elite

Posted Wednesday, Aug. 18, 1999, at 10:29 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Russ Smith is the editor in chief and owner of New York Press, the Manhattan weekly he founded in 1988. He writes the column "Mugger" for the paper. Ellen Willis directs the cultural journalism program at New York University. Her latest book, Don't Think, Smile! Notes on a Decade of Denial will be published this fall.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions