Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Chicago Boys
Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a "progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony." Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade--is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.
He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education--a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. "If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire."
Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the after-party at Marie Antoinette's vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil performed)--and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.
Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. Rubin told PBS, "President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped into the Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in economic policy."
Furman, a leading disciple of Rubin, was chosen to head the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, the think tank Rubin helped found to argue for reforming, rather than abandoning, the free-trade agenda. Add to that Goolsbee's February meeting with Canadian consulate officials, who left with the distinct impression that they had been instructed not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA campaigning seriously, and there is every reason for concern about a replay of 1993.
The irony is that there is absolutely no reason for this backsliding. The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest. "The effects of the neoliberal global order that has been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive," the letter states. "Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population."
When Friedman died in 2006, such bold critiques of his legacy were largely absent. The adoring memorials spoke only of grand achievement, with one of the more prominent appreciations appearing in the New York Times--written by Austan Goolsbee. Yet now, just two years later, Friedman's name is seen as a liability even at his own alma mater. So why has Obama chosen this moment, when all illusions of a consensus have dropped away, to go Chicago retro?
The news is not all bad. Furman claims he will be drawing on the expertise of two Keynesian economists: Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith, son of Friedman's nemesis John Kenneth Galbraith. Our "current economic crisis," Obama recently said, did not come from nowhere. It is "the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long."
True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.Visit Naomi's website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .
© 2008 The Nation



162 Comments so far
Show AllSo much for Obama trying to characterize himself as a "new" politician doing things "differently." Point of fact, he is just another inside the beltway corporatist marching lock step with his paymasters and handlers in the corporate world. Say good bye to your Earth Mother, and while you are at it: yourself!
First, Stephen Zunes' article on an Obama "turn to the right" on foreign policy with his AIPAC appearance, Now Klein's piece on the "right" economics of Obama (which I think doesn't really represent a "turning" but a long-standing Obama stance only briefly contradicted by some "not serious" campaign posturing against NAFTA). What a turn-about for Common Dreams, on which website you could hardly detect a whiff of progressive critique of Obama. Slowly but surely the myth of "Obama-the-progressive" is going out the window. This kind of critique could do one or the other of two things, either of which would be all to the good: (a) pressure Obama to begin to be more responsive to his progressive "base." (b) motivate more Americans to look at one of the truly progressive alternative independent or third party candidates. Either way, happier days may be here again (or just around the corner) for "us."
Surprise! NOT! Run Ralph. Run!
Unless Naomi is actually supporting Obama, then we must assume she wishes John McCain to be elected. Because one of the two of them is going to be.
She makes a good living describing the problems she sees in the world, but isn't helping YOU here. Rather than casting aspersions from somewhere on high as in her last sentence:
"But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do", YOU would be better served by realizing,
"But before Obama can purge Washington of ANYTHING, he has to GET ELECTED."
I don't know much about Jason Furman, and his Wal-Mart connections are deplorable, but his relying on advice from, as Naomi Klein states, 'Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith,' is heartening.
Austan Goolsbee I'd rate as a little more liberal than Ms. Klein gives him credit, and definitely the economic antidote to Freidman, contrary to his glowing eulogy, but he is not as progressive as I'd like.
I guess Obama could come out against free market capitalism entirely and hand a point-blank issue to McCain with which to finish him off, but he's come this far to win and make some changes. One thing's for sure: Under McCain we will be mired in another four years of Bush's corrupt crony capitalism. (Just look at who McCain has advising him on the economy -- lobbyists.)
I never thought Obama was perfectly progressive, nor in any other way perfect, but he's a damn sight better than his GOP opposition.
We aren't electing the lesser of two evils, as some try to cast it; in an imperfect world, it is not the lesser of two evils, but the least imperfect of two imperfect candidates.
To me, Obama is that least imperfect candidate.
As Daniel David says, he must first get elected to do anything. Even if he is only a slight improvement, that would be better than the unmitigated disaster that awaits under President McCain.
This is what Naomi was saying a short while ago:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/29/7366/
"Obama has the power to be more than its victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign."
"Obama can use his campaign to start now. Let the repairing begin."
I am so glad she, Prof. Zunes (Zunes has done a 180 on Obama) and others that regularly contribute to CD have started to see Obama for what he is:
A pro-Big Business, Pro-Big Oil, Pro-Military Industrial Complex, Pro-Status Quo, Pro-Establishment, conventional politician, peddling "change" and "hope" to the feeble-minded masses who eagerly buy this crap.
I saw it from the beginning and blasted the Obama fawning. Better late than never.
I just read The Shock Doctrine, so this piece was very timely for me. Obama is the least corporatist of the three who were still running on the major tickets, but he's got his "Chicago Boys" as well, and the more his supporters know that, the more they can keep him in check (or at least that's how democracy is supposed to work). The other two were openly corporatist and were mere fronts for special interests.
The sheeple have two mandates: McCain, or McCain Light.
For the rest who believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE. You can always cast your lot in with Nader to protest the Single Party Entity.
Dear Barack:
Please also consult with Ralph Nader.
WOW!!! I am so shocked and saddened by this article. I have had the winds blown out of my sails. I had such faith in Obama and his growing grass-roots movement.
I can understand Obamas' declared stand on Israel, because no one can get elected who attacks Israels'oppression of the Palestinian people. But Obamas' devotion of neoliberal free market capitalism is mind-blowing. Free market capitalism is the true evil of our times! It is destroying the world!!!
I have to put my trust in the analysis of Obama by Naomi Klein and Stephen Zunes because I so admire the integrity of their minds.
Obama needs now to be forcibly challenged time and time again on his neoconservative economic views.
This is devasatating news! Is Obam no better than McCain? Where do we go from here???
Thankfully Obama's true colors are finally coming out.
Looks like its another vote for Ralph (again.)
It is rather interesting to note that if a used car salesman sells a customer a "lemon" without full disclosure, he is deemed as misrepresenting the product, so he can be charged with depceptive practices or fraud. But when politicians misrepresent themselves, mislead the voters and sell us a bill of goods and we vote for them based on their campaign platforms and promises, we the voters have no recourse! Shouldn't these politicians be charged with deceptive practices, misrepresentation and fraud as well?
We must still remember that the choice here is between Obama and McCain, remember Bush v Gore, and how so many progressives thought a vote for Nader would send a message? Look at the results. Imagine if we'd had a president Gore (well, maybe not a VP Lieberman though), or a president Kerry. The Republican are far and beyond despicable. Another 4 years of them and we're in deep shit. At least with Obama there is hope of some reason, and some change in the right direction. It may not be a total revolution, and he may still side with corporate interests, but I do believe he will also reach out to help those who need it most.
This kind of criticism is good. It is better that we begin pressuring president-elect Obama now.
I'm still voting for Obama, as McCain will be an absolute horror. Anything else is a vote for McCain. There are only two viable parties in this country. Until a third party is actually formed that has any real power, that's the way it is. It's not enough for a third party advocate to pop up every four years and run for the presidency.
"What a turn-about for Common Dreams, on which website you could hardly detect a whiff of progressive critique of Obama"
Huh? you think there's been no critique of Obama on CD? That's a laugh. Where have have you been the last few weeks? That's about all it's been on CD. This is a very Anti Obama website.
Suggested reading: The progressive delusion.
What some people classify as anti-Obama is merely pointing out the realities of the situation. Regrettably, the sad truth is that many Americans want nothing more than the false comfort of being able to revert to previous illusions and hypocrisy about their country, its governance and its place in the world. In that case, don't worry. You'll get your wish.
Thank you Naomi. I grab this as yet another example that humanity is still incapable of facing or pursuing power in a balanced manner. Big picture and whole picture thinking isn't often in the current cards for power players. Power is a drug -- and no one is immune. History accounts for endless, worldly examples of this. Maybe some day, more people will somehow transcend disproportionate forms of self-interest and come to see how such pursuit is ultimately self-destructive. We have a long way to go.
For the meantime, we need more voices like you to serve a check -- sort of a "heads up" immune system for the body politic. Democracy demands no less from any of us at any time.
Let's remember, folks - the Grand Capitalist Brotherhood controls it all. There won't be a saviour comin' - only the exploited victims can fight back. Maybe.
Jerry D. Rose writes:
"Slowly but surely the myth of "Obama-the-progressive" is going out the window. This kind of critique could do one or the other of two things, either of which would be all to the good: (a) pressure Obama to begin to be more responsive to his progressive "base." (b) motivate more Americans to look at one of the truly progressive alternative independent or third party candidates."
There's a third way in which actual critical attention to the Obama machine can help, even at this late date:
c. break the Democratic Party's determination to foist off this creepy "post-partisan" as the Democratic nominee.
Given that the economy is falling completely apart all over the millions of poor people the "Democrats" don't deign to mention, I'm STILL hoping the Dems throw off the "leadership" and nominate John Edwards.
An alarming development in Barky-land, whereby the Anointed One hops on his new plane and doesn't return to the U.S. until the coronation:
"Obama considering world tour ahead of August convention"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41022.html
In the same vein, check THIS out:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Dem_convention_panel_faces_15_milli_06132008.html
"The host committee for the Democratic National Convention faces a possible shortfall of $15 million, complicating logistics for the August event and forcing it to ABRUPTLY POSTPONE A MEDIA WALKTHROUGH OF THE SITE scheduled for next week."
It looks like the "Democrats" -- I AM one, for the moment, but will not vote for the fraud Obama regardless of the birthday suit factor -- intend to shut down all remaining vestiges of democracy.
Hurray for Klein -- and a big BOOOO to the celebrity "left" who've pushed and pushed this guy.
And the Dims are STILL blaming Nader because their no-balls DLC Dim "Candidates" FAILED.
The slave trucks are coming. Vote Dim and they'll have a "Happy Face" covering the Skull & Bones.
Glen Ford of Black Commentator saw through Obama early on.
Obama has said some smart things--the question is whether it is mostly posturing. He is smart. He knows what to say to appeal to whatever audience he is talking to.
Better than McCain for sure, but not by much.
Hardly the progressive dream.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me tw- er--cant be fooled again.
It has seemed very obvious for a long time that the people are ahead of the politicians (in terms of wanting progressive changes, wanting Bush out, wanting the occupation to end, wanting a new energy policy, wanting corrupt politics to end...) Obama is now going to have to start dealing with a strong progressive base who will demand more progressive policies than he might be ready for himself. His response to this pressure will be critical to his continued success.
While I don't think Obama is a savior, he is uniquely positioned to ride the wave of his popularity and potentially bite the hand that feeds him. The big question is: will he bite the corporations and the status quo interests that have have supported him? Or will he bite the progressive electorate who elected him? Considering all the changes that are happening politically, environmentally, socially (eg. the internet) and the changes in awareness (more and more people, like me, waking up over the last 8 years in particular to the corporate stranglehold on our society), there is a chance that he might decide to bite the corporations hand and throw his lot in with the rabble rousing electorate. While nothing is certain, it is possible that this year Obama might make the choice that we all hope he will.
Let's keep the pressure on him to make the right choice with rewards and punishments (and lots of questions about his actions, choices and words!)
long live the internet
truth to power
Yes, unlike Israel, the Chicago School has no mass base. So why is Obama pandering to it? Campaign contributions? Genuine faith in markets as the totality of political economy? Owes some people some favors? I can't think of any other reasons.
Markets are useful for society as expressions of people's need to trade and desire to acquire, but they can't control producers' and merchants' tendency to dump costs on other people whenever possible, whether as pollution, disease, or unsafe products. Markets don't care about whether you live long, live well or enjoy happiness.
You poor, poor dreamers......who think a vote for Nader accomplishes anything!!
It is up to US, the voters, to hold Obamas feet to the fire after he is elected.....WE hold the key, not the candidate.....when we forget that, it is all over for Democracy!!
So what will be effective in changing American society?
Revolution Now?
Thank you, Naomi. You are a voice for truth, and none of us can be complacent. Should Obama turn out to have turned away from his constituency, we have time to discover this, and with a highly motivated populace this time around, I could see forces at work to make a different outcome for the presidency than either of the two 'mainstream' candidates should both be seen as business as usual offerings. And this I think would be true should either get elected under false pretenses; this country is changing itself - it does not depend any longer on who is its leader. We are galvanized and will only become more so as the consequences of criminal leadership bite deeper. It won't be a question of motivation any longer; we will all be motivated.
Things aren't going to get any better, not for a while at least. Read 'The Shock Doctrine.' Whether the impact was fully intentional or not - and I could argue that the timing is a bit off - they've stuck it to us now. Knowledge is sanity.
Mr. Obama, we love you, but stick with the program! Use your smarts and get all sides of the picture. Navigate!
Obama and McCain are not two peas in a pod. Obama will definitely make a better president than McCain. Will Obama be a champion for progressives? Most likely not. But he will be much closer to that ideal than McCain. If Obama were to speak out against free-market capitalism while running for president, he would be buried by corporate America. He's not dumb. Obama's playing the game to win the presidency, but that doesn't mean he would make a bad president. Even if he were only a mediocre president, that's much, much better than 4 more years of continued Bush policies under McCain.
Responses to this afternoon's posts:
Kman2, 12:05 P.M. Where has there been another ARTICLE in CD that was Obama-critical (before Zunes and Klein)? Of course I don't mean the comments. Nearly as I can tell those have been about equally pro and anti Obama, if you count as "pro" Obama all those who don't particularly like him but say we have to choose him as the one "viable" candidate.
Navarro, 12:16 An intriguing third possibility, that the Dems would replace Obama on the ticket. This is no more remote, as I see it, than the possibility of one indictment from a Chicago grand jury on Rezko-related prosectution. Rezko is already (reportedly) saying that the Republicans are "pressuring" him to implicate Obama in the Illinois corruption case. As Evelyn Pringle warned long ago, the party could find itself with just this dreadful necessity, as the Senator could be "Spitzer-ized." Not a happy prospect, but Rezko is sitting in jail awaiting sentencing, probably in September, and who knows what songs he'll sing as he contemplates his fate? (do you really think they would nominate Edwards?)
rogerh 12:37 and others on this thread. That President Obama might bite the corporations that supported rather than the progressives who elected him is a rather forlorn hope for our influence on his presidency. In any gangster movies I've seen, the failure to "deliver" goods that have been "paid for" is tantamount to signing your own death warrant.
I would hope that this much-needed "bite" would be delivered, but I'd be prepared to examine my own butt for teeth-marks.
mountaineer June 14th, 2008 2:23 pm -- 'If Obama were to speak out against free-market capitalism while running for president, he would be buried by corporate America.'
But he'll be willing and able to do so safely after you've elected him! Right?
My gawd, people! What is the prescription for such self-delusion. I think I may need some just to be able to get through my remaining years.
arvy: self delusion comes in all sizes; how do you know that your cynicism this time around isn't the delusion? While I expect you very well may be right; you also may well be wrong. Unchecked cynicism is just as damaging as unfounded hope (actually I believe cynicism is much more damaging to the individual psyche - as is obvious from my posts :)
I've read a lot of different points of view about Obama's leanings, both here, and elsewhere, and of the negatives, I have to wonder how many come from McCain's camp.
We saw how far the repubs were willing to go in order to bring down Bill Clinton. I have no doubt they're turning over every rock wherever Obama has been to find anything that has even the slightest chance of sticking to him.
I googled "politics, progressive" awhile back, and Obama was on the list, along with Jimmy Carter, and quite a few others who's names I recognized. It seemed like good company to be in.
~ Jerry D. Rose ~
Although your realism and humor do ring true, perhaps the "bell that tolls" for Obama is his concrete survival.
Perhaps his possible "duplicity" ( of th'ang that brought him dancing ) is simply gaming all elements of the spectrum of opportunity ?
He's stated his charismatic commitment to be a _ L E A D E R _ to those people willing enough to support and become ALIGNED to real change, by putting their butts on the line along with him.
This is for me, his NOTICE to Americans to 'seize the day' and get the message out in near unanimity for the termination of corpo-fascist power controlling structure.
¿ Perhaps the POSSIBILITY of becoming the 'larger than life itself' leader of a once again free people -- for all of future history to adore -- is starkly in contrast to mere politic hay strewn bu$h!t?
Namaste
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
I told you, I told you, I told you.
Here's the way one insider explained it to me. The neo-cons hijacked the Republican party, leaving moderate Republicans without a party . . . so they went to the Democratic party and supported Obama, who is the most "centrist" (read Republican) of all Democratic candidates. These people are called Obamicans. Now you have two Republicans running for President (one with a Democratic label): both war hawks, both "free market" corporate profiteers.
And, don't tell me that Hillary is more corporate than Obama. I did my homework months ago (and I've posted it in these forums several times). Hillary's voting record in the Senate is far more progressive than Obama's. In fact, Obama's record is not progressive at all! Obama voted for the corporate-welfare energy bill written by oil company lobbyists in Dick Cheney's office in the White House. He voted for the class-action tort "reform" bill that was so lusted after by corporate lobbyists. He voted against the 30% interest-rate cap on credit cards. He voted to confirm ultra-right Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior. The list goes on and on and on. Hillary voted the progressive way on all these measures and many more.
And, don't tell me about the neutral-war speech Obama gave at an anti-war rally in 2002. Obama had the opportunity to vote for the Feingold-Reid amendment in 2007 -- requiring withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008 -- and he did not vote for it. He did not vote for the measure even though it was sponsored by the Senate majority-leader Harry Reid, and even at a time when the vast majority of Americans had turned against the war! Hillary voted for Feingold-Reid.
Nor does Obama support Bernie Sanders' bill to ban the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. (In fact, Obama introduced his own bill -- which went nowhere -- "clarifying" the law so that DOD has authority for deciding whether crimes committed by U.S. mercenaries in foreign countries should be prosecuted.) Hillary is co-sponsoring Sanders' bill.
Irony of all ironies: not only is Hillary by far the most progressive candidate, she also is by far the strongest in head-to-head match-ups with John McCain -- in ELECTORAL VOTES. (Don't forget, popular votes don't count in presidential elections.)
I understand why corporate media pushed the most corporate Democratic candidate, but why did CommonDreams black out all criticism of Obama until after Hillary suspended her campaign? Ditto with The Nation, Zunes, and other so-called progressives. Anybody have the answer to that one?
Wow, there's a new line of bull from the Obamabots. Only someone who's never read Naomi Klein could possibly accuse criticism of Obama as 'coming from the McCain camp'. Go read her book "The Shock Doctrine".
The willingness to ignore facts, and then to substitute sheer fantasy in their place amongst the Obamabots is really starting to become staggering.
Look at where his money comes from. There's a website called Center for Responsive Politics that lets you search filing records. Take a look at who Obama's advisors are. Who does he invite to sit with him when its time to form an economic policy?
If you've read Ms. Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", you'd know there's a long history of subverting or destroying democracy for the benefit of economic interests. The Chicago School is right in the middle of this. When Pinochet kills off Allende and takes power, its the Chicago School that provides the experts. And there's a history of candidates saying one thing before the election, then suddenly calling in the extreme experts of the Chicago School to screw the people who just elected them.
I could just laugh at all the fools who make up fantasies about who Obama is and would then go vote for him on that basis except for the fact that these connections and policies are very dangerous.
Samson, the sheeple are not interested in truth or facts. They are driven by more illusive categories of thought: like hope, team psychology, ignorance, and beating drums.
I've brought up concerns I've had about Obama in the past.
I think what we're starting to see here is a good deal of Republican disinformation. Do you think it's a coincidence that McCain just admitted he will need support from former Hillary supporters in order to win? You, Mr. and Mrs. former Hillary supporter, are the target.
Politically, pro-Nader and pro-McCain people are really the same. Both drain political support from Obama. Politics is about compromise, people, not popularity! Candidates are measured on their 1) money-raising skills and 2) media appeal, not their ideology. For 1) need to enlist corporate/rich men support--for 2) must be pro-Israel.
Now is Obama all that he is said to be? No, but it's too late now that he's the nominee. I tried to warn y'all, although my issue was more with Obama's electibility than with the skeletons in his closet, the corporate friends we don't know about, free marketism, and his fealty to Zion (the extent of which was only revealed after Obama's first post-nomination speech to AIPAC.)
Chapter 9 of The Shock Doctrine describes what happened to Solidarity in Poland. The members of Solidarity had helped overthrow the communist government to gain more freedom in their country. But they still didn't want an economy for the benefit of rich capitalists. But, leaders of Solidarity, not Walesa but those that grabbed power after him had other ideas. They huddled up in secret with the economists from the Chicago school and came up with a 'shock therapy' plan. No one knew of this when they were holding elections. Only a handful of people knew about it before it was announced and pushed through.
Heavy doses of selling off of state property. Of course, the state property is sold off far beyond what its worth to the same sorts of businesspeople who also promote the Chicago School as the center of economic excellence. Its all basically organized theft. They steal control of the government, then steal everything that people of that country had built up and owned.
When I see a candidate that seems to be an obvious fraud, who stands up and just chants applause lines about hope and change, but who won't ever say exactly what sort of change he'll bring, then I see that he's got a long association with the sort of people who are around the Chicago School, then I get very, very worried.
Huck June 14th, 2008 3:29 pm
...and jumping on bandwagons... They live in a black or white world. You are either: good or bad, Democrat or Republican, Lakers fan or Celtics fan, for change or against it, progressive or conservative, an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter......
There's Obamabotism out to the extreme. Everything and everyone is judged entirely by whether they help Obama. If anyone dares to try do anything that might take a vote away from the saint Obama, they are as bad as the Republicans.
I love how the entire focus is really just on seizing power. The Democrats must have power. Obama must have power. Nothing else matters. Anyone who gets in the way is the enemy.
Then there's the blatant statement that the only thing that counts in a candidate is the candidates ability to receive corporate money and get the support of the corporate media. IE, you will support the candidates of the corporations. You have no choice. You will be assimilated.
Why is anyone surprised that I oppose Obama and this nonsense?
The illusion has vanished and the clouds await us as a new Democratic Washington steers into the storm. The lifeboats are few and the tethers are loosened as the dark night awaits us. Down, down, down into the abyss led by a bright smile, a friendly wave, and a vision born in the heart of the blues.
rogerh June 14th, 2008 2:49 pm -- 'Unchecked cynicism is just as damaging as unfounded hope.'
That's arguable, but really isn't the point. The problem is that some (by no means all) here are beginning their own version of the process that they purport to despise -- namely the ad hominem refusal to address substance dismissal of all unfavorable commentary, regardless of factual bases, as either 'unchecked cynicism' or, even worse, as some kind of planted plot. Whether that's a symptom of self-delusion or just willful blindness I'll leave for others to decide along with its likelihood and level of potential damage.
The new constraint for any and all is energy:
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/files/sydimc/images/Oil-producing-countries-past-peak-Oct-2007.png
Obama and McCain supporters are exactly alike. Both crews are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
My personal favorite:
Oh no! The sky is falling! The Democrats will save us! Quick vote for a Democrat!
Sure if you think Obama will be no better than McCain vote for Nader, Please... I think you should vote to make it count and if your vote helps the worst candidate, it is not good for your country and the reality of the system is important but if you really think Obama is Evil or close to it..make your protest vote!
This guy Furman is a big contributer of money, at least more than 50 grand to the campaign and Obama plays to win but like Naomi says he has some economists who are the anti Chicago school too. I haven't found what Furman is saying now about Wal Mart but well see.
If Obama said all the things most of you want him to say he would have lost to Hillary long ago. If Obama said he was against the "free market", He would be toast in 3 minutes.... but since there is no such thing as Pure Socialism or Capitalism and all systems are mixed, he will make the big decisions if possible, once he has the power. Now he can't make any decisions that will change anything that you criticize him for but possibly gain a few Nader votes but lose the election big time.
He must remain balanced in economics now to reflect the reality of our system. If he was labeled a socialist, he would be toast.
But if he is gonna change things he has to win first... that is reality and the 2 party system is reality.
Here is what his position on the economy is if you care to read what the next president has to say.. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Now you can criticize what he has to say, instead of what Furman said.
I love the one about in order to win he needs to sound just like a Republican, but don't worry once elected you'll see he's very progressive, and he will not be the least bit concerned with his reelection (so don't worry about what he said) because he will be so busy championing all the progressive causes he won't have time to keep sounding and acting like a Republican!
You see he is so principled you can trust him not do what he says. He was just saying that in order to get elected, which of course is a good idea. Every politician should say or do anything it takes to get elected. Love it!
I am not ready to read into Naomi's piece any more than the facts that she presents, to whit:
* He is making sure not to excite AIPAC to act against him.
* He is not denying his bona fides as a defender of capitalism
To indicate otherwise would almost surely doom his chances to be elected.
He is doing no more than being an astute politician - - a highly essential quality in a president
His choice of economic advisers is well balanced too
Like most progressives, I am concerned, but I will give him the benefit of the doubts that are arising amongst us - at least, so far.
Naomi raises some valid concerns, but does not really say much against Obama. In fact I see her piece as mostly a warning to Obama, that he is being watched carefully by the people he needs on his side to win.
Nobody (not even FDR) ever dreamed that FDR would turn out to be a progressive. On the contrary, I will be surprised if Obama doesn't turn out to be a progressive.
So much for "change we can believe in", right guys?
I love it when peole introduce religious terminology into the mix like "evil" to make some irrelevant comparison. I vote my values as measured against the candidates record. Moreover, I measure his or her rhetoric against the actual results of a constellation of actions on his behalf: not only by the candidate but by his cronies. Obama's rhetoric does not align with the results people are producing for his campaign.
Obama's environmental plan is a joke written by the Nuclear and Bio fuel industries. Both are inimical to the Earth.
I have no intention of voting for Obama. And if McCain wins as a result, too bad.