Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Too Big to Fail and Too Small to Matter
These times provide a crash course on the corporate state:
If a company like AIG is too big to fail, the government will rescue it. Mere people -- too small to matter -- are expendable.
The insurance industry is too big to fail. A person's health is too small to matter, so -- when it fails due to the absence or loopholes of insurance coverage -- that's tough luck.
The Defense Department is too big to fail. The people it's killing in Iraq and Afghanistan are too small to matter.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal is too big to fail. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined by Washington, is too small to matter.
Overall, the warfare state is too big to fail. The virtues of peace are too small to matter.
Agribusiness is too big to fail. Family farmers are too dirt-small to matter.
The leverage for the U.S. Treasury to subsidize Wall Street is too big to fail. The leverage to subsidize mothers and children kicked off welfare is too small to matter.
The political momentum for bailing out corporate America is too big to fail. The political momentum for funding adequate payment rates from Medicaid to reimburse healthcare providers is too small to matter.
The oil conglomerates are too big to fail. Global warming is too small to matter.
The prison industry is too big to fail. The need for preschool is too small to matter.
Corporate power is too big to fail. The ordeals of working people and want-to-be-working people are too small to matter.
Human worth as maximized by dollars: too big to fail. Human worth as affirmed by humanistic values: too small to matter.
The current odds of pumping at least several hundred billion taxpayer dollars into corporate America: too big to fail. The current odds of launching a massive federal jobs program: too small to matter.
Such priorities and mindsets are in overdrive at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street. But a basic shift in government priorities is possible. That's what happened three-quarters of a century ago, when a progressive upsurge prevented the re-election of President Herbert Hoover -- and then effectively mobilized to pressure the new occupant of the White House.
After campaigning in 1932 on a middle-of-the-road Democratic platform, Franklin Roosevelt went on to become a president who denounced the "economic royalists" and made common cause with working people and the unemployed. People across the country organized for social change. In the process, you might say, the power of progressive movements became too big to fail.
Something like that could happen again.
83 Comments so far
Show AllI not only do not think that these institutions are are too big to fail, they are too big to be allowed to survive.
There is something to be said for small, if only we could find it in banking. My past history with banks is that I have had 3 buyouts in the last 25 year with regard to local banking institutions. Maybe a credit union is next on the horizon.
DeColores,
Rockerbabe1
Right on Roncypert! You take the prize for comment of the day! You da man!
These damn "institutions" are certainly way too big and ought to be allowed to collapse the way they would in a free market. But no. This is the opposite of a "free market." This is crony capitalism or cartel/monopoly capitalism or whatever you want to call it. It's govt being used by giant corporations. (And now they are one and the same, so the distinction doesn't even operate anymore; the state IS the corporate; corporate staff members are literally in Congress writing the enabling legislation at the direction of corporate supervisors in the Republican Party and the White House.) It's all highly centralized and all three "branches" of the federal govt are now run by a single arm. That single arm is robbing the public blind, funneling money from the public treasure into the corporate troughs while spying on ordinary Americans and using the power of the state to intimidate and control people. They've wrecked our democracy and trashed the Commons and run back to their gated communities to wreak more havoc and death.
The collapse of media in this country was even more devastating than the banking disaster but received virtually no coverage.
The five corporate media outlets that remain chose to censor stories that ended our democracy and transformed our country from one ruled by law to one ruled by wealthy elites.
Just a few of the stories they ignored which destroyed our freedoms:
(1) The Downing Street Memos (irrefutable smoking gun proof that we were lied into Iraq)
(2) The loss of Habeas Corpus (the building block of democracy)
(3) 4 million people, mostly democrats, scrubbed from voter rolls in 2000 and 2004.
(4) Telecommunications companies were tapping our phones BEFORE 9/11.
(5) First Amendment lost with creation of "Free Speech Zones".
I could list 100 more.
Like the banks, these media companies failed.
Like the banks, these media companies were too big.
Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist.
For the sake of what's left of our country we need to break these media companies up into little pieces.
And send the propagandists who run them to jail for a long time.
LeeAnnG
What a great one-liner: "Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist."
Perfect. Just perfect. Corporations are not human beings, and they should never have been given the same rights. The powers-that-be who want corporations to be equal with real people are often the same ones who want the country to be run "as the founders intended" - or at least claim to. But corporations had limits in the beginning. This is one case in which we need to revert to the "original" rules.
I'd love to see some trust busting and breaking up of the conglomerates, too. Wonderful post, Cygnus!
LeeAnnG
What a great one-liner: "Any company that's too big to fail is too big to exist."
Perfect. Just perfect. Corporations are not human beings, and they should never have been given the same rights. The powers-that-be who want corporations to be equal with real people are often the same ones who want the country to be run "as the founders intended" - or at least claim to. But corporations had limits in the beginning. This is one case in which we need to revert to the "original" rules.
I'd love to see some trust busting and breaking up of the conglomerates, too. Wonderful post, Cygnus!
Very Nicely Put!
Nicely done Mr. Solomon; says everything I have come to believe as of lately. And so many wonder why we moderates are voting Democratic. Thank you,DeColores.
Rockerbabe1
"Something like that could happen again."
Right Norman. Sure.
Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, RFK or MLK.
He's on board to bail out the rich. To spy on Americans. To grant corporations the right to break any laws that suits their needs in D.C..
These are starkly different times and a starkly different country--thanks to democrats bending over time and time again for GWB.
No thanks, Norm.
But you're still going to invest in my Perpetual Motion Machine company, aren't you?
May I at least send you a prospectus?
Great summary. If only we could see the planetary ecology as too important to fail. If only we could see world peace as too important to ignore.
If only we could see the US constitution as too important to fail. If only our elected officials could see their oath of office (you know, the one where they promise to defend the constitution) as too important to fail to uphold.
Mere lawmakers -- too small to matter -- are expendable
so are judges as I read this Fascist Scam of the New American Century.
"..the power of progressive movements became too big to fail. Something like that could happen again."
You are in a dreamy, misty world of illusion if you think Obama is the leader of a progressive movement.
What is the point of comments such as yours? What is the point of stating that Mr. Solomon is "in a dream, misty world of illusion"?
Are Mr. Solomon's internal states germane to the subjects that he writes about? I suppose perhaps sometimes they are. But you seem to be throwing out ad hominem attacks that do not address Mr. Solomon's larger point. There is a chance here, people. That is what the message. It's not about Obama or McSame or some neanderthal wolf-slaying plastic-faced Nurse Ratched from Alaska. It's not about Biden. That dude is just Biden his time anyway, bidin' his time until he can throw swanky parties at the Naval Observatory.
No, but seriously, we will always have the leadership we demand. Obama is receptive. Open. He is not going to be a rubber stamp for corporate control. And now that the markets have collapsed a lot of the cover for GOPuke economic (and foreign) policies has been exposed. The point is that the next president is going to be much more beholden to the people because the people have been hurt the worst. We have a pretty decent chance of riding out these neo-con (neo-liberal) economic policies that have been robbing the world blind all these years.
Obama does not have to be "the leader of a progrssive movement." All he has to do is get out of the way and allow needed reforms. This is not going to be so hard given all the public anger over the current financial meltdown/rip-off.
My response? see Erroll's comment above and attached link.
You say "All he needs to do is get out of the way and allow needed reforms". Exactly!, he's doing that. He's getting so far out of the way of progressive reforms that he's crossed to the other side, so why support him???
The answer to the question "Why support him?" is so obvious I hesitate to say it among the keen intellects that frequent this site. The alternative is abysmal. McCain is far far far more destructive than Obama. Obama does support a lot of progressive reforms. The main point though is that he will not be an obstructionist because (unlike McCain) he is not a complete lackey of the corporate fascist boys.
Sorry to be optimistic and smile on your cloudy day, but I really believe that under Obama we will once again have a fed govt (at least a DOMESTIC fed govt; foreign policy is a lot more resistant to reform) that addresses and serves the interests of lower and middle class Americans. We will see govt investments in infrastructure, education, and clean energy.
I don't need to spell out the immense difference between Obama and McCain. An Obama administration would be far more likely than a McCain administration to implement programs of social uplift, far more likely to protect and strengthen public schools, far more likely to respect the Endangered Species Act and preserve biodiversity, far more likely to support mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and so on and so on.
In short, only a closeted Republican with ulterior motives would promote the argument that Obama is so deeply compromised that a vote for Obama is essentially the same as a vote for McCain. Please take that argument back to where it came from and do not think that the intelligent readers of this website will fall for it.
Please stop with this closet Republican nonsense! I've never voted for any Republicans. I am completely opposed to Barack Obama as I disagree with him completely on foreign policy, economic policy, and even on much of his domestic policy positions. He is now saying he may have to "put on hold" all of the things you say we must vote for Obama because of his integrity. I know you are frightened of the boogieman McCain. Please remember that there are millions of americans who will vote for him against their best interests. This is NOT progressives fault nor responsibility!! My vote is my vote, and I will never ever vote for someone I dislike as much as I do Barack Obama.
I doubt if they'll stop, progressiveparty. The reactionary would-be 110% progressives who post here are simply incapable of grasping that it is possible to reject Obama's candidacy on principle, or in good faith.
They reject the likes of you and I like an organ transplant recipient's body rejects an incompatible organ. Thus, in spasms of cognitive dissonance, they'll cycle through every defense mechanism in the book to explain you away: projection, hostility, paranoia.
We have the advantage of absolutely knowing that we're not moles or trolls or plants or closet Republicans or frauds or phonies or narcissists. They're at the mercy of exasperated self-stoking and self-confiming delusion.
And it's an apparently infinite regression, such that even if somehow you manage to convince the person who thinks they've "outed" you that you're not at all what they think, they simply switch to an equivalent dismissal, e.g. well, if you're NOT a Republican mole or sympathizer, you're doing their work, so you're just as bad. Or you're a "Hater"-- the one-size-fits-all accusation. In any case, anyone who doesn't support Obama, albeit with reservations or even trepidation, is not a bona-fide progressive, and should make like a tree and leave! We don't BELONG here, I've been told.
One such embittered wacko recently claimed to have "reported" me-- for spreading anti-progressive sedition and getting on its nerves, presumably. Sad, really.
We've all seen those cartoons where Wile E. Coyote or Elmer Fudd takes several steps off a cliff into thin air, then suddenly looks down and THEN begins to fall. I think that we have that effect on those desperate enough to believe that the Democratic Party/Obama is genuinely part of the solution
THANK YOU for your post !
Let me say...Thank You for your post!
Little Brother. A brilliantly lucid post.
Little Brother, Nice post. If I ever called you a republican troll I sincerely apologize. I'm guilty of doing that once or twice here---but I can't remember to whom.
You state your case well.
you just wait and see.
What idealists don't realize is that nothing ever meets the ideal.
Because Obama's not perfect you're not voting for him.
And if McCain gets elected you'll pretend it wasn't partially your fault.
You'll bear some of the responsibility none-the-less.
There are only two candidates with a chance to be president.
If McCain wins, you'll have no right to complain.
You need to take a logic class.
Your non sequiturs have more non in them than any others I've seen.
Obama has expressed his desire to EXPAND the military.
With that one decision alone he ensures all of us, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there'll be no funding for any of the progressive programs he proposes.
There's no money left.
The day-to-day activities, all of them, of the Federal government are being financed by debt.
Do you want him to borrow and spend like the Republicans?
A little logic is all that's required to see that Obama is blowing smoke.
Cygnus
This writer [as do I] agrees with your sentiments. He also points out that in a speech that Obama gave this past weekend, Obama seems more interested in giving comfort to Wall Street than in ameliorating the conditions of the poor and working class in this country. He also notes that in an interview that Obama gave last Saturday to the N.Y. Times, Obama is not averse in retaining the services of Henry Paulson. All this does lend much credence to Obama'c claim of being an agent of change.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s23.shtml
The Demoks are so very far into the extreme right gutter, they deserve not one word of praise. Let them eat the same karmic cake as their Repuk gutter-mates. We progressives are trying to drag this country out of the extreme right gutter and we ain't gonna do that by praising the status quo.
I find that people all over the political spectrum, including progressives, love to operate with a lazy-minded dualism (e.g. corporatists and non-corporatists), creating the simplest possible model of politicians and political parties as it takes the least mental energy to maintain. I detest such information-poor models as they do nothing to increase predictive ability or understanding.
When I see Obama, I certainly do not see a typical corporatist, i.e. someone most interested in padding his bank account. Actually, as pitiful as the Republican pundits appear to be in analyzing personalities, I believe many of them have him pegged right. Obama has a messianic personality. Obama, who must know he is facing great danger as a black (in appearance anyway) candidate, has demonstrated that he is extraordinarily ambitious and willing to take great risk to achieve his ambitions. If he can become king of the world by playing the corporatists' game, he will do it, but if he could become king by leading a progressive movement, it seems clear he would do that too. Unlike someone like Bush, who by his upbringing and social position has always been dedicated to right-wing economic positions, or a McCain who has always been dedicated to militarist positions, Obama is more of a blank slate who is flexible and willing to do whatever it takes. If we do have a depression and great turmoil, it is conceivable that Obama could initiate radical changes if he perceives such to be politically advantageous to him, which would be true only if the progressives are pushing him and prodding him, and the nation, along with way. McCain, like Bush, would never initiate any radical changes towards the left, though he may towards the right, regardless of the political advantages, because leftist policies go against everything he has ever believed in.
Of course, you are absolutely right, we should be prodding Obama right now! Unfortunately, you don't have a leg to prod on if you're a Democrat Party delegate, such as Solomon. Still, I admire him for all the work he has done on behalf of the American people. For years he worked tirelessly and was effective in bringing down the nuclear power industry - well, not all the way down but at least slowed them down substantially. Thank you Norm!
And you are right about Solomon's accomplishments lately. He came around our town to talk about health care and actually gave more time to a discussion about why we need to support the Democrat Obama and not a real progressive. This could have been the fault of the audience and their questions. Many of us spoke up about the conflict: Obama is not supporting single payer health care so if you are for it, and he's against it, why support him? Is he putting pressure on the Democrats? Is he issuing warnings to Obama that his support for him is conditional? Is it conditional? I would imagine not. Solomon is a true-blue Democrat now, which is why he doesn't have any teeth at this point.
Obama is against impeaching Bush, too. What is it about Obama that makes Democrats so willing to minimalize his ominous choices for advisors, his bad votes, military agenda, etc.? oops, how could I forget. The scary Republicans! If I were an empire and had my very own duopoly, I'd design things exactly the same way. It's a win-win!
Hopefully, Solomon won't be swallowed whole by the status quo. He could be a valuable asset, even if he stays within the Dem Party. At least he thinks he's doing the right thing and that's better than not thinking about it at all. And don't forget ......
Vote Nader 08 (Come on Norm, you can do better!)
Hank Fur
Well said. I have Norman Solomon's well written War Made Easy and also the excellent DVD of the same name which makes it all the more frustrating why someone of Solomon's credentials would support a militant such as Obama.
As Joshua Frank perceptively points out in his article, "Solomon has in the past dished out scare tactics in an attempt to threaten progressives into voting against their own interests..." and that would include, as Frank notes, pseudo progressives like Barack Obama.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank09232008.html
For Obama to become another Roosevelt, he would need a movement that would MAKE him act like another Roosevelt. When Roosevelt came into office, there was a leftist-populist movement that was decades old that could influence the politics of tens of millions of people. I don't see any equivalent in the early 21st century USA, corrupted by the money and power of empire, and hollowed out by decades of Reaganism.
If big were better, EXON would be the cheapest gas on the road.
Normon Solomon makes an intelligent links between the hundreds of billions given to war profiteers and the hundreds of billions now being sought for Wall Street.
More linkage noted in the articles:
Wall Street’s special offer – but you must act now!
AmericanChronicle.com
September 23, 2008
http://americanchronicle.com/articles/75216
Let's bail out the greedy, the crooks, the suckers
AmericanChronicle.com
September 22, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75078
While I appreciate and agree with Norman Solomon on his larger points, I disagree with him vehemently in his support for Obama. He is NOT the answer; he is a large part of the problem. Progressives have to WAKE UP and reject notions of pragmatism and realism and instead embrace true progressives who will do what is NECESSARY. Obama is now talking about "putting on hold" the few good things he might have accomplished as a terrible President had he been elected in November. Democrats no longer deserve our support, not even the few "good" ones, who are enablers of the capitulaters.
an online letter to representatives to stop the bailout
http://ga3.org/campaign/congress_no_blank_check/xixdkn34p7iewd3b?qp_source=20080922%5fnoblankchck
Instead of slathering $1 trillion of lipstick on the fascist pigs who have stolen our treasure:
Our treasury doles out 1 or 2 trillion dollars to open small, well-regulated community banks where the community decides the best way to invest? Family farms, infrastructure projects, small business, local manufacturing, green energy.
Meanwhile, back in D.C., tax policies are changed so excessive wealth (+5 million McCain?) starts paying up to pay down our national debt.
"...The U.S. nuclear arsenal is too big to fail. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined by Washington, is too small to matter..."
Speaking of which...
The local progressive station uses CNN at the top of the hour for "news".
They just reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be arguing before the UN General Assembly today regarding Iran's right to have a nuclear program.
They didn't say Nuclear Weapons Program, just Nuclear Program.
Every reader of Common Dreams is, of course, fully aware that Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus has a right to pursue a Program for Nuclear Energy.
Apparently CNN is either too lazy or dishonest to report accurately. My guess is dishonest.
CNN presents dishonest and inaccurate headlines virtually every hour on our local progressive station.
I've written the owner of the station repeatedly.
He responds every time that CNN is the gold standard of news and he doesn't believe there's any bias.
This is an independent owner of a progressive station. A rarity indeed in radio.
Yet even he doesn't realize CNN is shoveling disinformation daily.
We're sunk.
It seems a bit of an oxymoron to have an "independent owner" of a progressive station when all the truly progressive stations I know are community owned; such as the Pacifica stations, KPFK, KPFA and others, as well as KBOO in Portland.
My Mother and Father's generation successfully met the challenge of regulating the greed of capitalism after the great depression.
My aging generation believed the greed of capitalism was totally checked, but chose to worship success over all other values.
My adult children's generation, and that of their children must face the reality that corporate capitalism is an intrinsic evil. It is their children's generation that will work for a Democratic form of Socialism, and to participate in a revolutionary consciousness that works for a more just, sustainable and compassionate world.
obama could have taken a stand for the american worker here but he has not
mr paulson was with goldman sachs for 20 years as chairman until he went into government in 2006 and as such he authored this financial nightmare more than anyone else
when he left goldman he cashed in for 500 million dollars and paid not one penny in income tax on that money
this is the guy obama wants to keep on his staff
at least wackjob mccain would like to get rid of him - he doesn't have the authority to do that but it is the correct sentiment
its hard for people to concede that obama is a fraud - their hopes get crushed yet again
that is the way it is - when both these candidates are rejected then real options must be considered
options like a real reform candidate - no offence ralph
we need someone who will piss on the bailout document out of sheer respect
cheers, b
Barack Obama chimes in on why he opposes impeachment in mid 2007...
"...I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president’s authority,…I believe if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction,…We would once again, rather than attending to the people’s business, be engaged in a tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, non-stop circus.”
*** I guess Obama believes that lying our country into war, outing an undercover CIA agent, illegally wiretapping its citizens and torturing prisoners denied habeas corpus are not offenses great enough for him to support impeachment and uphold his oath to defend the Constitution??
You impeach for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Bush is guilty of all, in buckets.
John Nichols pointed out in his impeachment book that high crimes and misdemeanors don't mean violations of the criminal code (although a Bugolsi has made a case for murder), but high POLITICAL crimes. Misusing the trust of public office. Cronyism, looting, concealing public records. What is so difficult about constructing a case against Bush/Cheney?
Bribery? It is now accepted, not just in the White House, but in Congress.
Treason? Attacking 3,000 citizens on 9-11, in order to further their nefarious plots. Destroying the crime scene, opposing and delaying an investigation, then placing on operative in charge and refusing to testify or turn over public records? How can you not call this treason? Oh, yeah, because if treason prospers, none dare call it such.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: Excellent 3:43 post.
LITTLE BROTHER: Playing diplomat, the thing held in common with most who post on CD--Obama fans, Obama "settlers," Nader fans, and "other," is that we all share the pain, and these ARE painful times. It is painful to see so much waste, graft, corruption, fraud, contempt for human life--American and Iraqi, and of late Afghani--and face the pre-selected choices, a crippled media, restrictions on protest, frightening means to control dissent, evisceration of our GUARANTEED Bill of RIGHTS, and now our "hands" forced to write THE check that bails out the very ones who have trespassed against us.
One lesson to the world that is viewing this from a more objective distance is the PRICE mammon extracts from any society. There is a wisdom to the cosmic circle, its 12 motivations situated to check-balance the potential ravages of any singular player/perspective. The emphasis on miliarism in our society is alloting to Mars a disproportionate share of our fiscal pie; and this is supported by an equally diseased love of mammon.
Ironically Christ represented the path that put both of these pursuits behind... he advocated peace by letting grievances go, turning the other cheek, and not seeking treasure on THIS plane. Those that claim to follow have inverted the teachings and gone to war over titles, names, ideas divorced from their founding principles, much the way those who claim patriotism are often clueless about the trades on our precious rights now being erased.
Perhaps if we acknowledge our common pain, what it does to our souls to be tortured by the knowledge that our government has gone to war on fixed evidence and plundered at least 2 other nations, and STILL been left bankrupt, that it's let GREED and ANGER rule its direction and the results are crystal clear to any with eyes to see. The reformation process, which is to say the promise of the rising phoenix can only come after the ashes. Looks like the crash and BURN is ostensibly in gear... these are THE times that are given to test what we are made of, and part of that process is determined by "choose ye which Master ye shall serve." Our "leaders" have chosen Mars and Mammon, and only by strength of will, soul & intellect can we begin a new path and draw others along. The times demand nothing less.
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Siouxrose. I certainly agree that pain is a common denominator here, if not a common dream.
Ironically, I was confronted earlier this year by someone close to me, though living far away, who didn't realize that I was "Little Brother" until I mentioned it in passing in our e-mail correspondence. This person was apparently freaked out by Little Brother's willingness to express profound anger and scathing criticism on certain issues-- because the Little Brother persona is so different from my good-humored, personable, agreeable and witty in-person self.
We haven't exactly worked through this issue since the initial discovery. I was at first embarrassed and even chagrined, not because my interlocutor directly condemned my comments, but because this person insinuated that certain comments were so intense as to be violent, and suggested that I underestimated how overwhelming and intimidating they could be.
I certainly can't contradict a reader's valid experience, but upon reflection I stand by my general approach: I read articles and comments, and respond with as much truth and clarity and wit as I can manage; unlike my interlocutor, who actually suggested that I not publish comments until after I'd set them aside to "cool off" (like cookies or pies), I champion passion. (FWIW, I'm not sure that this person isn't just more timid and fragile than I realized.) Anyway, it's not a very practical suggestion; the moving thread moves on.
This response is a bit of a digression, but I must say that I neither possess nor aspire to Christ's storied unlimited forbearance. This past weekend, I found myself tag-teamed by detractors who became truly exasperating. I was distressed, but felt compelled to rebut their ridiculous challenges. To return to where I started-- I'm intrigued by your suggestion that common pain may be a foundation for common cause. But, as always, the devil's in the details. Cheers.
I said what about my eyes?
"Keep them on the road"
I said what about my passion?
"Keep it burning."
I said what about my heart?
"Tell me what you hold inside it?"
I said pain and sorrow.
He said, "stay with it."
Jallaludin Rumi
Benito Mussolini praised the New Deal as following his own economic program, saying in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation."
I'll take Huey Long over FDR.