Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Ideology of No Ideology
On Friday, columnist David Brooks informed readers that Barack Obama's picks "are not ideological." The incoming president's key economic advisers "are moderate and thoughtful Democrats," while Hillary Clinton's foreign-policy views "are hardheaded and pragmatic."
On Saturday, the New York Times front page reported that the president-elect's choices for secretaries of State and Treasury "suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues."
On Monday, hours before Obama's formal announcement of his economic team, USA Today explained that he is forming a Cabinet with "records that display more pragmatism than ideology."
The ideology of no ideology is nifty. No matter how tilted in favor of powerful interests, it can be a deft way to keep touting policy agendas as common-sense pragmatism -- virtuous enough to draw opposition only from ideologues.
Meanwhile, the end of ideology among policymakers is about as imminent as the end of history.
But -- in sync with the ideology of no ideology -- deference to corporate power isn't ideological. And belief in the U.S. government's prerogative to use military force anywhere in the world is a matter of credibility, not ideology.
Ideological assumptions gain power as they seem to disappear into the prevailing political scenery. So, for instance, reliably non-ideological ideological journalists sit at the studio table every Friday night on the PBS "Washington Week" program, which is currently funded by similarly non-ideological outfits including Boeing, the National Mining Association and Constellation Energy ("the nation's largest supplier of competitive electricity to large commercial and industrial customers," with revenues of $21 billion last year).
Along the way, the ideology of no ideology can corral even normally incisive commentators. So, over the weekend, as news broke about the nominations of Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to top economic posts, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote an article praising "the members of Obama's new economic team." Reich declared: "All are pragmatists. Some media have dubbed them 'centrists' or 'center-right,' but in truth they're remarkably free of ideological preconception. ... They are not visionaries but we don't need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group."
Competence can be very good. But "free of ideological preconception"? I want to meet these guys. If they really don't have any ideological preconceptions, they belong in the book of Guinness World Records.
As for competence, it seems that claims of non-ideology often go hand-in-hand with overblown claims of economic mastery. "Geithner and Summers are credited with expertise in crisis management," economist Mark Weisbrot pointed out on Monday, "but we better hope they don't manage the current crisis like they did in East Asia, Russia, Argentina or any of the other countries that Treasury was involved in during the 1990s with their help. They helped bring on the East Asian crisis in 1997 by pressuring the governments in the region to de-regulate international financial flows, which was the main cause of the crisis. Then they insisted that all bailout money go through the IMF, and delayed aid until most of the damage was done. Then they attached damaging conditions" to the aid.
After all is said and done, the ideology of no ideology is just like any other ideology that's apt to be much better at promoting itself than living up to its pretenses. No amount of flowery rhetoric or claims of transcendent non-ideology should deter tough scrutiny. And Judge Judy's injunction should apply to the ideology of no ideology as much as to any ideology that owns up to being one: "Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining."
124 Comments so far
Show AllGreat article. I don't know what ideology means to David Brooks. Perhaps David Brooks is defining ideology as something so far from reality that it has no application. Or something that is laughably simplistic. Or something so wrongheaded, or with such a disguised agenda, that is has been called out by real world events and self-destructed, such as the Chicago school.
Every time you spend a dime, you are expressing an unspoken ideology in a way. You are voting for what counts to you, what you think will work in some way. Same applies to government. The fact that children, poor people and working people have been nickle and dimed for years, subjected to humiliation ceremonies to get any assistance, forced into dead end work programs, and meanwhile hundreds of billions can go out in an blink of an eye to the wealthiest with no conditions, that is one example of the expression of an ideology that is supported by most elected officials in both political parties.
To the extent that the current ideology is pragmatic, it continues to be pragmatic towards serving the needs of high finance and the military contracters. (I do not say the military, because it doesn't serve the soldiers.) So who cares what you call it. It is what it is.
Mark Twain said: "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ’pinions is.”
Joe
DavidG,
I do agree with you that people have their ideologies and do not want to let go. But I also believe this is the direction we must absolutely go!
I'm still excited!
I didn't think David Brooks could get any more absurd and intellectually dishonest than he already is - and has been for the past 8yrs.
But he surely has bounded over his own steps, in his latest remarks.
Brooks is intelligent enough to know that:
...he himself is a shameless double talker, and that
...the conservativism he has been so chronically, greasily apologizing for all these years is nothing but an indefensible, monstrous crock, and that
...only an idiot would be fooled by his attempt to now call "non-ideological" anything that he can no longer praise as "conservative."
Like his beloved philosophy of 'conservativism' does, Brooks counts on the utter idiocy of his listeners to Not Notice his preposterous bullshit and his slithering rationalizations.
The man may have an agile mind in one sense, but has absolutely no honor, no intellectual honesty.
And he knows it.
And he DOE NOT care.
Solomon is brilliant. He penetrates the propaganda of the corporate regime with his article. He sees how those in power hide their ideology.
The most important thing to remember is that the US population is progressive on most policy preferences, and getting moreso due to demographics. Do a search on "progressive majority" and you'll find lots of good stats. The people of America are not only progressive in their policy preferences, but about 30 percent self-identify as progressive or liberal. (See Gallup for details.)
The corporate regime, the established system of business and government, is conservative and militarist, and is at odds with the majority of the people. Parts of this regime (such as militarism and rejecting international law) go back to 1818. But most of the current regime's policies date to the mid-1970s as a response to the progressive policy changes of 1962-1968. For more on the corporate regime concept see Charles Derber's book Hidden Power.
The current government's policies under this corporate regime are conservative. The nation is now a militarist, totalitarian plutocracy. (See Princeton's Sheldon Wolin's book Democracy Inc.)
So change in America based on a progressive, constitutional revolution would involve bringing public policy over to mirror public opinion in the three key domains of policy: domestic, foreign and electoral.
Obama, by his choices of people, is seeking to preserve the corporate regime.
This is important to know. He didn't pick Joseph Stiglitz, Michael Hudson, Dean Baker, Bernie Sanders or Paul Krugman as economic advisors. He didn't pick Ray McGovern for intelligence. He didn't pick Kucinich for Secretary of State or a new department for peace. He didn't pick Phyllis Bennis for foreign affairs. Or Edwards to take on poverty. Or Nader to take on corporate crime. He won't pick Marian Wright Edelman for anything. No writer for CommonDreams will be picked. He is picking establishment people, who are in and have been maintaining the corporate regime.
For more on Obama's actual agenda see Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, just out.
For how to force Obama, Congress, the Supreme Court and state and local governments, a great source of the whole range of tactics and strategies is in a chapter of Frances Fox Piven's book Challenging Authority, 2006.
Let's do our homework progressive activists. Let's be clear on the task before us. Only progressive activists and multiple methods will bring about change. For us to have a progressive, constitutional revolution, we will have to force Obama and Congress and the Supreme Court and the State Legislatures to bring it about. The end result would be the realization of the great statement of progressive electoral ideals: the will of the people shall be the law of the land.
"Obama, by his choices of people, is seeking to preserve the corporate regime."
Huh? A month ago you were affirming Obama and urging people to vote for him. Back then, Nader and Green voters were asserting that Obama was a tool for the corporate elite. Now you agree! Strikes me as a day late and dollar short. What does it all mean? You elect someone you disagree with so you can then "challenge" him based on some book you read? You mobilize forces against your own candidate? Did you every hear of the concept of diminished returns? Brilliant!
Methinks you read too many books my friend. Why not try a Urban Plunge some time without your credit cards, gas guzzler, and self importance. Take a stand with the homeless hoping for the best. Man, anyone know where the line forms for the poor, besides the stale bread line?
Chris DeGetmon: You say: "Huh? A month ago you were affirming Obama and urging people to vote for him."
Refresh my memory please. I recall saying for years that Obama is a corporate, militarist, *and* that he is less awful and less conservative than Bush/McCain/Palin. But I don't recall ever urging others to vote for Obama. I respect the voting decisions of other progressives, whether for the short-term or long-term; their conscience; against Republicans; or their sense of the lesser of the top two. So if you can find where I was "affirming Obama and urging people to vote for him" then please come up with the reference. Otherwise, I'll assume you have me confused with someone else.
As for reading, sorry, no apologies for reading. Knowledge from books is good for lots of reasons.
As for actions, I give speeches, go on the radio, made calls for progressive candidates like Cindy Sheehan, called my precinct neighbors and urged them to vote as precinct co-chair, write and publish political articles, co-founded a progressive caucus in my state Democratic Party, sit on the board of that caucus, wrote for the Green Party Platform in 2008, helped progressive writers with some of their books because I'm a researcher, and more. I do what I can.
I'm all for knowledge. And all for action. Most of the posters here at CD, I think, do what they can, including you.
I was referring to your affirmations of articles of people like Hayden and Solomon (to name a couple), who are ardent supporters of Obama and the Right of Center Democratic Party. I agree that you have negatively critiqued Obama. The disconnect is that you cannot have it both ways - at least if you also want credibility by people who ARE to the left of the Democratic Party. Playing both sides of the fence reminds me of the Democratic leadership. They pay lip service to one thing and then do another. Obfuscations and excuses will not bring planetary transformation. That is the difference between us. If one's values are not in alignment with their votes, then they are engaged in a game of personal disempowerment regardless whatever else their efforts on behalf of injustice may be. If you build up somehting at the same time your Party guts your actions via corporate legislation, what have you gained?
To all the above, you are far too kind to me. The ladies that run it are the real workers. None the less thanks for the kind words. I am going to post the same on some of the new articles ( I didn't get this posted till late ) in hopes that more will think about it.
Thomas More: Only half in jest, I ask, would you please call the "ladies" women? I get a picture of women wearing white gloves, hats.....
"I get a picture of women wearing white gloves, hats....."
They after all are Southern Ladies, aside from that don't all ladies wear...? Just kidding!! I'll try but its a hard habit to break!
Thomas More: Hi. A man of humor. Good. I was just looking at photos on the HuffPo of kids when Obama decided to visit a food bank and adjoining school with Michelle and their kids. I have been thinking since the election, as I listen to African-Americans on what a boost it has given people to have this man, educated, son of a mother (with whom I am "smitten" in the best possible way. Have you read Janny Scott's article on Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, that was in the NYTimes and www.iht.com on March 14, 2008?) who was white from Kansas, and a man from Kenya.
I have pen-pals in prison. Immediately after the election, I got letters from two guys: one about 40, and the other about 50, who said that the young guys in prison let up a shout after the election results were "called" for Obama victory. In between feeling annoyed at the appointments, I feel really good that so many people are feeling good here and around the world about Obama being elected. Did you ever see Callie Shell's photos of Obama, online that she took starting when he was not yet running and through the campaign. You can google her name, in case I mess up: www.digitaljournalist.org but it's first on google list. With all good wishes to you....
Thanks for the links. I feel Obama is going to turn out better than most people think. But if nothing else, the justification he gives blacks after all these years is worth it alone.
Most that seem determined to find fault with him seem to find fault everywhere. Personally, when you look at his picks as a team, I believe he has done well. I know his NSA was a great choice.
Happy Thanksgiving!
This doesn't really belong on this string, but when I left the Food Bank yesterday we were out of almost everything and nothing was coming in.
PLEASE donate to your local Food Bank, I understand this is not just happening to us. Giving is down everywhere for obvious reasons, but even one can would help. Please give what you can.
Thanks for the reminder, Thomas. These are hard times and they will get harder. Let's keep this in mind as we nit-pick which lackey would do better than which.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Thomas More: Your comment does belong on this string. It is aggravating. I was getting really upset about the condition of hunger in this country, again. Stats of people on food stamps, according to headlines on DemocracyNow this morning, is where I think I heard it, is higher than it has ever been in food stamp/now card history of the program. So many who are entitled are not getting it. I accidentally stopped to listen to a familiar voice visiting my local NYC sports station to talk about his food program, which gets publicity this time of year. He said that private programs have run out of food and the government needs to do it. The sports show host, whose mother-in-law works in a food pantry, got him to donate cash, he said, but when the guest said, "government has to take care of food" for people, the sports guy said, "well, you can't tax business people more" and then did the whole talking points thing. I used to sneer when listening to the Yankees fan talk show host (his mother-in-law is a Mets fan, he said. As am I,now, having grown up a Brooklyn Dodgers baseball fan, listening to Jackie Robinson on the radio with my disabled WWII vet dad). What used to make me sneer was the guy used to read rating shares for World Series and other shows and stock market quotes (which made me turn off the radio station).
Hunger is a major problem in the US. DemocracyNow had a guest speak about his new book yesterday, "A People's History of Poverty in the US". I doubt we'll see "personal responsibility" and "moral failure" Republican talking points on CD, but you never know. All reminders that there are poor people who are hungry are important. There now are hungry college graduates/seniors at soup kitchens/pantries now,too.
The government bails out Corporate Banks, while the people bail out Food Banks.
Thank you for your work at the Food Bank, Thomas More! I just read an article in USA Today about how food banks are overwhelmed these days.
My Friend Thomas,
"This doesn't really belong on this string, but when I left the Food Bank yesterday we were out of almost everything and nothing was coming in."
Your remark belongs on every cd string.(and on every lamp post in every town and city) Perhaps the most important advisory I have seen all day.
It is in some ways unbelievable that organizations such as your's are even necessary in United States and Canada. (And have been long before this economic crises) Two of the wealthiest countrys in the world. But necessary they are.
Good Luck
"crises." What the heck is this!!!??? crisis (That's better)
I agree with my whole heart Dante.
Bourgeois pragmatism is still better that Neoconism. I am still cautiously optimistic but what is evident is that we have to keep the heat on and as the
economy continues to collapse, that heat will grow in proportion.
The Jaded Prole
Change we can believe in. HA! HA! Gotcha again.
No one is getting Got!
Like I have said time and time again. Who the hell is going to work with Obama if he hires a bunch of progressives who only want accomplish progressive tasks? Oh a bunch of Right wing crazies who wish to do the same? Well the answer is only progressives and right wing crazies!
There is a mixture of all types in Government. And on the contrary to what we all believe the country does not revolve around us. Obama has to have balance, get help from all sides, in order to get anything done. He has to appoint trusted people, pull support from north, south, east and west. This is becoming the most annoying site to read!
I am all for being critical of Obama, I myself am quite critical of him. But I am also more than aware that the country does not revolve around one idea. That he can not just wave a magic wand and make things happen. He has to be smart, calculated, and open minded.
Not sure how many managers there are on this site. But for those that have been in a position of authority, you understand that you have to balance your staff. Some need a iron fist, some need verbal communication. Some staff members need written directions, some just need to be given a general idea that they can run with.
You have to put people in place, that can serve a certain purpose. Why are you progressive angry and taunting people because Obama didn't jump on the train and bring it to a dead stop in one stroke of his magic wand?
It's not funny, and it's pretty ignorant to expect of him. Sure he is far from what we wanted the most. But there was no way in hell we were going to get what we wanted anyway. And to mock folks for being hopeful that Obama might do some good, is exactly why we can't get any where. You can and will never be happy, just like the far right can't and will never be happy.
It much easier for your to complain and whine, than it is to make suggestions on how to change the system. Because you can have the greatest race car driver in the world at your disposal but put him behind a 96 Geo Prism and he will still never win the Grand Prix.
ARGHHHH you all make me want to scream sometimes!
Easy there O Rei de Reis no one is out to get you, to a degree it's all in good serious fun for now. Obama will do some good, no doubt. Have a little faith.
I strongly doubt that Congress will refuse to work with Obama because they don't like some of the people in his cabinet. The Democrats did not refuse to work with Bush because he had a bunch of right-wingers in his cabinet. They gave him most of what he wanted for eight years.
It's not asking too much of Obama to expect him not to choose people like Larry Summers, who helped get us into our current economic crisis. Summers is hardly "Change we can believe in".
If the Democrats start off from the center and the Republicans start off from the far right, the compromises that result WILL be center-right. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If the choice between having Democrats or Republicans in the White House is how far to the right we go, we need to build alternative parties or give up on voting.
Sure we wanted Nader or someone else to win, but since we didn't elect 535 Nader's what exactly was he supposed to do once he got the job? And how exactly is his message supposed to get out, with 1900 tv channels and like 3 of them being independent?
Think bottom up please! Think Local!
Remember who the first promoter of "No Ideology" ideology was? It was Deng Xiaoping of China. He stopped his communists colleagues debating endlessly on the question of socialism vs. capitalism becuase he had already decided that capitalism is the way to go for China, at least the Chinese version of it. It was the so called "Black Cats or White Cats, they are good cats as long as they catch mice" doctrine.
When one talks about Obama's being the "No Ideology" ideology it only means that there will be no fundamental change of perceptions or conclusion about the way USA would move forward. The die is cast by the preceding administrations and Obama's job is to tinker with the system with the not-so-new or original tools and hope to produce a different outcome. It is Einstein's definition of insanity.
Obama has decided on the Cats (not the horse, the dog or the bullocks) to do the job. To be precise, it will be the FAT CATS. And of course it doesn't matter if they are black or white cats. But we all know, don't we? THEY ARE GOING TO BE BLACK CATS. AS BLACK AS YOU CAN FIND THEM. ("Black" in this instance is used to mean "immoral", "selfish", "unscrupulous", etc)
Was insanity what brought all great empires to heel?
Actually, economic collapse, brought on by the wealthy oligarchy bleeding the treasury and combined with overextension of military in the service of enforcing far-flung client states, dragged down previous global empires.
Fortunately, the USA doesn't have anything like that going on.
I put David Brooks on 'ignore' long ago. He is one of the political massholes (a black hole in the political space which should be filled by a political mass (in the Marxian sense, I suppose) but instead sucks intelligent thought into Wonderland or Never-never Land).
Let's not call this ideology; let's not dignify it with such a grandiose term; let's harken back to Lakoff and his word: "framing". The framing is all wrong. It's not ideology, it's the idea that the gangsters are "OK". "Common sense pragmatism"? Check out Alexander Zaitchik's article at Alternet "Obama to the Economic Rescue: Is He Picking the Best Team?" http://www.alternet.org/workplace/108507/obama_to_the_economic_rescue%3A_is_he_picking_the_best_team/
This -- what these people have done -- has not been pragmatic: look around you at the wreckage!
The framing is "up with the rich and to hell with the workers", and everything is evaluated in those terms -- the 'financial economy' instead of the 'real economy' (yeah -- they create their own reality while others -- specified as the press, but meaning everyone -- try to catch up: standard Bushology). It's the framing of idiots who think they can kill gold-egg laying geese, live happily ever after, and all that. They seemed to have forgotten that a global economy cuts two ways, and they go down with everything else. And the framing is "left vs right" -- another fraud meant to divert attention and divide and conquer the political mass while the Wizards of Oz (Wall St. division) pull off another heist. The Cowardly Lion applauds.
Alright then, gather up your smelly hound dogs and bring them into the deli, and then plead ignorance when they ravage the sausage. Yeah -- that's going to be believable...
Bingo.
What current events demonstrate is that, despite the perception of great political upheaval, the same Ministry of Truth is cranking out the same propaganda.
One key element of which is: When the masses stop buying your crap (ideology - boooo!), repackage the very selfsame crap in a shiny, new wrapper (pragmatism - yeah!).
Thank goodness the USA has a free and independent press to counter the newspeak, eh?
I really do believe we are on the brink of the creation of the post-ideological world.
God, I hope so.
This is very exciting!
Don't get too excited, Suzanne! Most humans can't live without their ideologies! They have religious ideologies, political ideologies, economic ideologies, race-based ideologies, nationalistic ideologies, the list goes on and on.
The result of ideologies is that you don't have to think. The mess that the world is in demonstrates clearly that most people can't think! That's why they're called sheeple!
www.dangerouscreation.com
I think it's called Brave New World.
Soloman's writing is distracting. What he really means is: "Shut up and row."
Row ..row... row your boat gently down the streaaaaam.....merrily merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream.
For those who are interested Karl Mannhiem an Austrian wrote a book around 1933 called Ideology and Utopia. Hard reading but an attempt to define what ideology means and how it relates to politics. Basically Mannhiem says that ideology is wishful thinking not in step with reality like religion it seems. Interestly he says utopia is when reality catches up with ideology that is the reality ends up being the wishful thinking.
I love the way we use these words without ever providing a definition of what we mean by them. Populism -is that an ideology? - at its best.
To badly paraphrase Albert Einstein, there are problems that sometimes cannot be solved on the same level of thinking that caused the problem in the first place. This is the real crossroad the U.S. is at in this time of economic collapse.
Changing economic structures with increased government regulation is not the final solution. The long term solution is a radical change in American values. Up to now, the American imagination has been captive to the mindset of U.S. corporate capitalism.
However, I sincerely believe a change in values will never happen without millions of Americans in the streets, shouting "human values not corporate values", "human rights not corporate rights". Washington much hear this loud and clear before any radical change in values can happen.
"Washington much hear this loud and clear before any radical change in values can happen." and what is "Washington"? What do we mean when we say such things? This is another one of those mysterious ideologies that has us frozen in time. Washington, named after general Washington, our first president, revolutionary, patriot and statesman, or a place, a state. Leaving our lives in Washington, and our course of action bound to what might or might not be heard there, is strange indeed.
The real Washington exists in our hearts, and it is we that must hear what we need to hear before any radical change in value can happen. This alone is a radical change.
Stephen, here's the quote from Einstein,
"The problems we face today cannot be solved by the minds that created them."
It's been appearing at the start of Mike Whitney's articles at www.informationclearinghouse.info and at www.counterpunch.com.
Why then is Obama stacking his cabinet and advisory positions with Gates, Emmanuel, Summers, Clinton, etc. etc., all old guard democrats (and republicans) who are complicit in the economic and military mess we are now in? Why?
rebelnow
My guess is, or my hope is that Obama needs their expertise and strong personalities to solve the most immediate economic problems, and that he has the self-confidence to control them. It is for the same reasons why FDR hired old man Kennedy to guard the hen house.
I do not believe Obama is a stooge for corporate America, he first had to get elected. He is smart and appears rather contemplative. But any progressive agenda will be bucked by very powerful forces. Only a renewed and more vibrant democracy can bring about genuine change in the U.S. Unregulated capitalism is the enemy of democracy.
The current rising insecurity of the middle class in America is the first great opportunity since the Great Depression to challenge U.S. corporate capitalism with massive demonstration in the streets. Obama needs these people in the streets if he is truly for real. He is not God. The capitalistic powers that be in the U.S. are terrified of a renewed democracy and they will use all the forces under their power to suppress such civic activism. But to me it is the only solution to corporate rule. The spiritual dynamics of a genuine democracy is the only force that can bring about a change in American values. It is a war between capitalism and democracy, it is a war between the material and the spiritual.
These people are being appointed AFTER he has been elected, and they are hardly the only strong experts around. If he has to 'control' them, then what is he? an authroritarian who is going to micromanage everything? Didn't we just go through a lot of that? At best, the problem is that Obama is unable to handle the pressures from the financial sector and establishment and feels forced to put these people in (at best!), but that doesn't speak well of his ability to even micromanage and be authoritarian. I don't think he has self-confideance as much as bravado -- he's a very good salesman, but that's different from an administrator, a statesman, or a real visionary leader. More likely, I think, he is a very talented political hack. Whether the people can organize well enough to push him that is the question I wonder about.
(Check out Democracy Now! tonight http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/25/naomi_klein_robert_kuttner_and_michael
"Naomi Klein, Robert Kuttner and Michael Hudson Dissect Obama’s New Economic Team & Stimulus Plan": there is some good thinking there.
"These people are being appointed AFTER he has been elected."
Over and over again we go. AFTER the election is when the real work and the real challenges JUST BEGIN. Being elected means absolutely nothing if he cannot manage to work within and amongst the circles of power that make up Washington and the international power structure. The election itself did not change the status quo, it only spoke to our desire and perhaps our commitment to change it. Obama still needs to be effective and garner the support and cooperation of a significant majority - publicly, privately and politically. He needs to balance your expectations with those who differ in theirs (you know - for example, all those conservatives and the "real" America ;-)
We need to understand that we threw Obama into the den of iniquity. He needs tough, tested, respected, competent and accepted folks to work with and for him if he has any chance of bringing about any real change at all. He has to work within the power structure as it is now, and just maybe with hard work and enough momentum WE might be able to clean things up - maybe.
Does that mean it will be business as usual? Unfortunately, mostly, yes. Does that mean he is not a man of conscious and merely a good salesman? NO. Does it mean that we can just sit back and expect Obama to know and represent our most passionate progressive aspirations? NO.
Help him help us. Be realistic. Apply common sense. And do what you can.
http://www.change.gov/
By that logic Eliot Ness should have hired made men as Treasury agents to clean up the mob.
The point is that he WAS elected and doesn't have to pander to the fascists to be sworn in now -- the excuse given for his rightist positions during the campaign.
There are plenty of tough, competent, respected people to bring in who were not responsible for the disaster we have now. 'Realistic' is that business as usual will be the death of us! Is that what you want?
"Help him help us. Be realistic. Apply common sense. And do what you can."
Well said, cosmobilly.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Good analysis, it's refreshing to hear some say that Obama ISN'T a corporate stooge, for once. I also appreciate that you are supportive of Obama's choices for his transition team and administration. Like the saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. However, I don't see how urging people to take to streets is going to help Obama. Could you explain how it would?
You misunderstand. Demonstrations aren't "to help Obama." The idea of a public demonstration is to assemble and make demands when common decency in representative government fails.
There is nothing more indicative of democracy than people getting into the streets. Why do you fear it?
I think what you want, Joe, is a king. We gave that up centuries ago.
-TIA
Joe Hope:
It is going to help Obama to put forth a a progressive agenda in the same way FDR put forth the New Deal. This came about only as a result of democratic civic activism after the great depression.
Do you know what happened to corporate globalization after the massive World Trade Organization (WTO) demonstrations in Seattle? (which I participated in). It has essentially stopped the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank in their tracks and has provided the opportunity for the global justice movement, the World Social Forum and the International Forum on Globalization to articulate realistic alternate ways of sustainable economic development. This in turn provided many struggling developing countries (particularly So America) with the expertise to confront the economic neoliberal Washington consensus.
"Do you know what happened to corporate globalization after the massive World Trade Organization (WTO) demonstrations in Seattle? (which I participated in). It has essentially stopped the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank in their tracks"
I think we have a lot in common.
I still don't think that unlawfully protesting in the streets is conducive to a healthy democracy. Although sometimes necessary (Boston Tea Party, Bonus March, Montgomery Bus Boycott), it often only serves to undermine the authority of the rule of law. Without the rule of law a democracy quickly becomes a pleasant euphemism for "mob rule". Imagine how much more effective those protest would be if everyone dropped their signs and became lawyers.
Did you really "stop them in their tracks"?
The right to publicly and peacefully assemble is not the same as unlawful protesting. And civil disobedience is by most accounts a recognized and accepted means of protest against unconscionable authority and inequitable law.
As I've written in this forum before, the rule of law is a misnomer. What gives law its authority is not the words written on paper nor the strong arms that see only the black and white of it. Rather, the authority of law is found in its appeal to a higher awareness as found in the Laws of Nature, unalienable rights, common decency, justice, fairness, ethics and morality. Without the underlying foundation and overarching reach of these basic tenets, law is merely authority without conscious.
Wise men, though all laws were abolished, would lead the same lives. - Aristophanes
This quote informs us, as it should, that there is something greater to aspire to than the law itself. Done rightly, the rule of law is merely the attempt, the means by which we aspire to achieve this greater end. The law is never the end in and of itself, and can never be as fluid or purposeful as to that which it tries to speak. Thus, the human conscious and rule of law unavoidably contend with one another.
To suggest rule of law as the greater of the two is to not understand the history and evolution of human society.
Wise men, though all laws were abolished, would lead the same lives. - Aristophanes
Seems a little simplistic for the modern world. Does it mean if there were no laws wise Californian men still wouldn't marry?
Hear hear cosmobilly!
Joe Hope sez:
"I still don't think that unlawfully protesting in the streets is conducive to a healthy democracy. Although sometimes necessary (Boston Tea Party, Bonus March, Montgomery Bus Boycott), it often only serves to undermine the authority of the rule of law."
Tell them that when you are arrested for slipping over the edge of a postage stamp sized 'free speech zone'.
This whole notion that Obama is shifting to the center is absurd. Obama's career as a politician has embraced conciliation and compromise. It is not so much that his team is non-ideological, but more that because of the wildly divergent viewpoints within his administration, it transcends ideology. His administration which will contain both Democrats and Republicans, is a powerful symbol of democracy. Let's face it, democracy is not stacking government with only people who will agree with you. Is Solomon actually suggesting Obama should be more ideological and partisan? Do we really want Obama to be like Bush?
The bottom line is you get who you vote for. I voted Obama. I got Obama. I'm happy. The rest of you, who held their nose and voted for him, you also got who you voted for. Don't act so surprised. Despite perceptions, none of his policy positions are any further to the Right than they were on election day.
I know some of you plan to "hold Obama's feet to the fire" to get him to support whatever your pet issue happens to be (free Mumia! save the whales! Puerto Rican independence!) But I sincerely hope that your plan of action doesn't rely on whining for the next 8 years in bitter articles and comments. Besides you might want to consider that compared to people like myself, who love Obama and are happy to SUPPORT his agenda for change, how much "people power" can the fringe left actually employ when you guys are, like, .09% of the population? A better solution is to work with us to make the Obama presidency the greatest presidency in the history of the US. Complaining isn't helpful.
"This whole notion that Obama is shifting to the center is absurd. Obama's career as a politician has embraced conciliation and compromise. It is not so much that his team is non-ideological, but more that because of the wildly divergent viewpoints within his administration, it transcends ideology. His administration which will contain both Democrats and Republicans, is a powerful symbol of democracy. Let's face it, democracy is not stacking government with only people who will agree with you. Is Solomon actually suggesting Obama should be more ideological and partisan? Do we really want Obama to be like Bush?"
That we DON'T is EXACTLY the reason to oppose the administration Obama is presently building. You don't "transcend ideology" when you launch into mushy "can't we all just get along"-ism right out of the gate--you just let the other side win every battle. If, instead of adopting a strong position, fighting for it, and making whatever concessions are necessary to get done what you want, you begin as a compromiser, making concessions before the other side has even done anything, you give the other side no motive to do anything but harden their position even further. Anything that happens in the way of a compromise, in such a circumstance, will always reflect the view of the side that fought from a position of strength. If you want more Bush, you support what Obama is doing now. If you're sick of Bush, you're angry with Obama.
"Despite perceptions, none of his policy positions are any further to the Right than they were on election day."
Really, bright boy? Obama has chosen nothing but Iraq war-hawks for his foreign policy team. Are you honestly going to sit there and say Obama didn't run on a platform of opposition to the Iraq war?
"Besides you might want to consider that compared to people like myself, who love Obama and are happy to SUPPORT his agenda for change, how much 'people power' can the fringe left actually employ when you guys are, like, .09% of the population?"
That fact that you would use the words "agenda for change" in the midst of this gang of retreads and failures Obama has been assembling means you've either paid no attention to what he's actually been doing or you're a complete idiot. The remedy is to either pay better attention or be silent and thought a fool, instead of opening your mouth as you've done here and removing all doubt.
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
"Are you honestly going to sit there and say Obama didn't run on a platform of opposition to the Iraq war?"
Before the election Obama stated he might keep Gates (if that's who you mean by "war hawks"), remember? So specifically what has he done that is so different than his positions before the election? Maybe you never bothered to investigate what Obama stands for. You get who you vote for.
Anyhow, everything else you wrote is just abusive, so I won't bother responding to it.
>> "Are you honestly going to sit there and say
>> Obama didn't run on a platform of opposition
>> to the Iraq war?"
>
> Before the election Obama stated he might keep
> Gates (if that's who you mean by "war hawks"),
> remember?
Back in June, some of his foreign policy advisers told the press they'd been urging the candidate to keep Gates. It was bad advice he should have rejected.
If you'd read anything at all about the administration being assembled, you'd have already observed its hawks-only character. One of the McCain campaigns' advisers--that's the McCain campaign that allegedly lost the last election--has been chosen by Obama to be his NSA. Reactionary war-criminal Henry Kissinger has gotten his choice as the Sec. of State nominee in Clinton, another damn Iraq war supporter. Janet Napolitano, another rabid Iraq-war supporter, has been tapped to be Secretary of Homeland Security. And so on. There have been plenty of recent articles on this. Start here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/107666/
> So specifically what has he done that is so
> different than his positions before the
> election? Maybe you never bothered to
> investigate what Obama stands for. You get
> who you vote for.
The example I've used repeatedly (because it's the most glaring) is Iraq. Whatever else one may say about Obama's candidacy, he was dead-set against the Iraq war. He has opposed it, ran against it, called it illegitimate, and, in fact, had worked to end it ever since he'd entered the Senate. Further, the people who had that point of view were right. Now that Obama is elected (by a solid margin, and on a platform of "change"), he's chosen all Iraq war-hawks for his military and foreign policy teams. Not a single opponent of it.
"Anyhow, everything else you wrote is just abusive, so I won't bother responding to it."
Though your premise is false (as anyone can see from reading this exchange), a failure to reply is, from your perspective, wise.
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
I know we don't like what he is doing, but has anyone put any thought into what would happen if he did the opposite?
What would happen if Obama just did away with Capitalism and everything else we progressives hate, and let the nation just burn? No plan, no nothing, just put into action all the leftist ideals we all hope for. Don't you think there would be serious consequences for going to far to the left?
I mean sure, on paper it all sounds nice, but the human condition doesn't allow for Communism or Socialism to work. People are greedy and are often born with out any common sense. So it's very easy to say down with government and all that jazz. But it would be nice to have something to go up in it's place don't ya think?
It's like saying you don't like a building so lets tear it down. You tear it down, but have no plan for the hundreds of people that are living there.
See my point?
Why would anyone, including "leftists" want this?
There are plenty of useful things Obama could do if he had the political power of the American people behind him. Here are a few:
1) Establish a universal health care system. Americans probably aren't ready for genuine socialized medicine (like they have over in Great Britain), but a single payer system like Canada's would be a huge improvement, saving money while covering all Americans.
2) Reform the political system. Appoint people to the FCC who would require networks to provide free air time to candidates. Establish a genuine public financing system for national elections similar to the systems in Arizona and Maine. Legislate away the Buckley vs. Valeo ruling that claimed, illogically, that money = speech.
3) End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Start the process of bringing US troops home from the literally 100+ countries they are today. Make serious cuts in military spending (which has been shown to be poor economic investment).
4) Nationalize Citicorp and other banks in trouble. Use the banks to issue loans at reasonable rates, and to re-negotiate mortgages to prevent defaults. Nationalize the Fed. Require 100% reserve requirements for banks. Currently, it's the banksters that create the new money by loaning money they don't have. A 100% reserve requirement would mean that the US government had the power to expand the money supply through public works projects.
5) Establish a living wage, a base income for everyone sufficient to keep every American out of poverty. (Our current trickledown policies have increased childhood poverty even as they've created a the wealthiest people who've ever existed.) Establish a maximum income and a wealth limit so that no one individual can have too much power.
6) Appoint worker-friendly people to the NLRB. Dismantle Taft-Hartley and other anti-union laws.
7) For global warming focus on energy conservation. Raise the CAFE standards to 40 or 50 mpg. Establish a carbon tax rather than the ineffective "cap and trade" system. Forget the illusions of nuclear power and the oxymoronic "clean coal".
8) Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and other fascistic institutions and laws. Re-establish the primacy of the Bill of Rights. Start working on EXPANDING our rights to those described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
9) End the embargo of Cuba
10) Legalize marijuana
11) Make appointments of some real progressives and leftists, not the same ruling class scum that created the mess the US is now in.
12) Push legislation that would end corporate personhood, the series of judicial rulings that have given corporations the privilages of citizenship with none of its responsibilities.
"I know we don't like what he is doing, but has anyone put any thought into what would happen if he did the opposite?"
There's absolutely no point in having an election if the losers of that election are then systematically put back into power by the "winner."
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
Obama is a capitalist as are his appointees. I guess that in itself is ideological. We did not elect a communist or a socialist. These appointees are pretty sharp and smart and that is good cause we're in a helluva fix right now. We need people who can help us get out of this economic implosion and who better than the inside players. I trust that the President provides direction and an overriding vision that includes the well being of those that elected him. Those who will be most hurt by a Depression are the poor and elderly. I like what Obama has said post election particularly the 2.5 million jobs and the infrastructure repair. He has also emphasized developing a new manufacturing base structured on Green technologies and development of 21st century mass transit. Yeah they are Capitalists but thats the way the world is for better or worse.
Obama has now backed off his campaign pledge to roll back the Bush tax cuts.
From CBS News:
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011. It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called "fairness" to the tax system.
No one is talking tax hikes now.
Over the weekend, Obama said he has charged his new economic team with devising a plan that would create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over two years. He said the plan would include broad spending plans as well as the middle- and low-income tax cuts he described during the campaign.
Aides later said the plan would not include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on taxpayers who make more than $250,000.
Asked Monday when those hikes might go into effect, Obama said, "Whether that's done through repeal, or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on."
Full story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/politics/main4631105.shtml
** Obama also pledged earlier this year to vote NO on FISA and join a planned filibuster. He ended up breaking his promise by voting YES.
** Obama has also broken his other campaign pledge, to use a "timeout" feature in NAFTA to examine it and possibly rewrite it. After getting the nomination he said this was heated campaign rhetoric and it didn't plan to follow through.
C..X1..Hole:I am bothered by the backpedaling on rolling back the tax cuts for the rich. I think people pressure is needed to counterbalance the financiers, "rich folks" who are pressuring him. This was discussed on DemocracyNow this morning. www.democracynow.org It's mentioned other places, Naomi Klein and two others. Really good. Read transcript and/or watch the show online.
He is getting bad advice from his team of "experts".
History shows us that tax increases on the upper income bracket always produce economic booms.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106410/tax_cuts:_the_b.s._and_the_facts/
Thom Hartmann makes the case that not only should the Bush tax cuts be rolled back, by the Reagan tax cuts too! (The tax rate on the upper income bracket prior to Reagan was 70%)
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/06/3003
The world is run by ideologies. Most of them are false, Religion for example.
Humans love ideologies. They save them the trouble of thinking, of working things out for themselves.
Take the Israelis. They have a simple ideology: create a racist, elitist, theocratic, nuclear-armed nation right in the middle of the Muslim world. With this ideology fixed in their minds they go about achieving their ambitions and don't allow anything or anyone to deter them, not international law, not human rights, not Geneva Conventions, not human decency.
Take America. It has a similar ideology only a Christian one. And it, thinking bigger than Israel, aims to run the world for its own benefit!
Ideologies will be the death of the human species.
www.dangeroucreation.com
In pointing out the ideological factors inherent in "no ideology," Solomon is saying in a very instructive way that we all have biases of one sort or another. It is simply not possible to live without any assumptions whatsoever about how the world is ordered. Those assumptions are part of our conditioning that comes through education and real-life experiences. They may be right, or they may be wrong. What is most important is that we recognize the profound influence that our biases have on how we view and respond to events in the world.
It would appear that many (though not all) of Obama's advisors have strong biases in favor of big money interests. We can only hope that Obama himself does not share these views and that he will use his administration to correct the imbalance that already tips heavily towards those with inordinate wealth and power. For the time being, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
There is no ideology without ideology. There are no objective 'experts' or individuals. There is only a national mythology so prevalent, so 'normalized', that it has become transparent - like the air around us. The apologists and explainers for this mythology - guys like Kissinger, and Summers, and thousands of others, pretend to be objective and pragmatic when dealing with their particular area of 'expertise'; claiming that what they advise is simply what 'the facts' demand, when their actual experise is a self-serving subservience to power - regardless of the facts. It was once put to music this way:
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not our department, says Wernher von Braun."
Wow, nice post.
Some non-ideological facts about Lawrence (aka Larry) Summers, Obama's newly appointed director of the National Economic Council:
1991-93: Chief economist of the World Bank
July 2, 1999: Appointed U.S. Treasury Secretary; served through the remainder of the Clinton Admistration.
2001: Named president of Harvard University. Resigned from that post in Februray 2006, after a relatively brief and turbulent tenure of five years, nudged by Harvard's governing corporation and facing a vote of no confidence from the influential Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Eventually alienated professors with a personal style that many saw as bullying and arrogant. His well-known desire to change Harvard's culture, which he saw as complacent, was accompanied by slights to some faculty members and missteps like his statement in 2005 that women might lack an intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science.
November 2008: named to Barack Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board.
The following memo was issued by Summers while he was working at the World Bank.
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
Postscript
After the memo became public in February 1992, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenburger wrote back to Summers: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear." Sadly, Mr. Lutzenburger was fired shortly after writing this letter.
Sioux Rose
ABENDLAND: Deeply troubling post for its exposure of the raw moral depravity of Summers; and this depraved indifference to the human life of others is considered wisdom when it allows hollow economic tables to sometimes balance. The sacrifice of the sacred for the profane in over-drive. It's tragic that Obama is just opening the gate to the same old despicable players in spite of so much evidence of so much going wrong, much that these sorts put into motion in the first place.
Yes, Siouxrose, I'd say the man is seriously deficient in the morality department: he obviously thinks that the peoples of Africa are dispensable entities, and that women are inferior beings (see his remarks about women while he was president at Harvard). He really is the stereotypical white male dirtbag. He fails to strike this observer as an embodiment of change.
...totally insane but surely seen as pragmatic by Obama inc.
What does 'pragmatic' mean in the mouths of the servants of Empire?
Is it just a euphemism for 'callous', 'willing to overlook human rights, morality, and international laws for the benefit of the ruling elites', and the like?
The statements made by Lawrence Summners are clearly insane in the context of legality. In Civil Law, insanity is a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to prevent the accused from knowing right from wrong. Our newly appointed Director of the National Economic Council has a moral, not ideological flaw. Anyone whose main purpose in life is to assist the already wealthy to acquire more wealth is immoral and without ethics. I don't know what this means in the person who appointed such a seriously flawed man to this important position.
I am inclined to say that obviously seeing things as they 'really' are is such a slippery reality. From person to person and expert to expert that vast sliding scale is engaged and geared up to satisfy some ends to some means. Who has the pragmatic and real view of the world among us, moderate and thoughtful, who? We all do.
That is the value of real democracy, the view to be realized, must encompass the whole, and the few at the top, that vapor thin layer, will never give us anything but their vain and narrow truth spouted from their lofty and disconnected realm that is founded on nothing but vain and faulty ideals.
When those who align themselves as left, feel wanting of what is espoused to be the best of the center right, and so fill that want with what they imagine is the pragmatic representative of that want, we have nothing but what is imagined is wanting. Imagine the wanting we will soon have.
What happened to Obama's promise to the people? So quickly forsaken for fear of reaching for ideals and so settling quickly instead for last centuries slippery pragmatism at clearinghouse prices on ebay.gov.
Leea:Hi. You are thinking broadly and well. I'm not going to write off Obama yet, but that is not why I am doing this reply. When I read your comment I thought of Howard Zinn's book title: "Declarations of Independence:American Ideology" 1990. If you like videos, there's a lot of him speaking on YouTube videos, as well as a great site set up for him, www.howardzinn.org. I've said this before: my favorite book is Zinn's "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train", Boston:Beacon Press, 2003 edition has a wonderful introduction. The book is his autobio, but is like a handbook for social change. You might really like it.
Thanks for the input NYCartist, well taken as usual.
Good article, but it is not really a matter of "ideology of no ideology". It's more "ideology posing as no ideology" (implicit in the article, no doubt.)
Ideology is the glue that holds the economic machine together (globalization, "market", unending economic growth, wealth manipulation). Pragmatism in the context "fixes" problems and keeps the engine running.
The root of the dilemma, in my opinion, is that the engine has proven itself to be deadly to the earth, communities, cultures, the soul; so, the pragmatic thing to do would be to figure out how to dismantle (and transform) the corporate machine with as little harm to individual lives as possible.
Is that ideological? To me, it seems that Summers and so on are the people saying to someone with cancer that with more chemo, another transfusion, more drugs we'll be able to drag it on a bit longer; whereas, what's really needed is a surgeon.
So, it is always a good idea to see assumptions clearly. We are still in the never-never land where only certain assumptions are acceptable and the way everything else is dealt with is to ignore it and pretend there *isn't* any other way of seeing things. (It's at the root of "we are pragmatists, not ideologues.") Are Obama and crew "deep" pragmatists? Not likely.
"The root of the dilemma, in my opinion, is that the engine has proven itself to be deadly to the earth, communities, cultures, the soul; so, the pragmatic thing to do would be to figure out how to dismantle (and transform) the corporate machine with as little harm to individual lives as possible."
Agreed.
I liken this to delicate trauma surgery: The patient is suffering severe trauma and will die without intervention. However, the surgeon's first job is to triage the patient to determine what the wounds are. Then, the surgeon has to stabilize the patient or the surgery itself may kill him/her. Then, the surgeon has to perform the necessary delicate surgery which could take many hours. Then, hopefully, the patient will live...if the steps are done and the surgeon is capable.
Ideology is the surgeon's training and credo of "first, do no harm." Pragmatism is the surgeon's ability to take the necessary steps, which will be different for each patient, and do it in a rapidly changing environment. Leave out one, and the patient dies.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Sioux Rose
ARVY: I am in total agreement with your 3rd paragraph, and that's what hit me this week. The preponderance of evidence is unmistable when we look at the convergence of corporate events: banks failing, the major (AIG) insurer, ditto, and now the big car companies. So what's wrong with a picture that has allowed CEOS to make off like bandits, reduce wages of the work force, and while hording so much wonder why the "workers" can't afford the products, including "sexed up" mortgages sold as bets on debt (esoteric derivatives) to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars leveraged against what does not even exist!!! And these bandits who came up with these various and sundry schemes have their hands out for bailouts in the form of millions and billions of dollars, that, when the nation isn't bidding its blood and treasure on the WASTES of military adventurism. NONE OF IT is working, and throwing $ at what is rotten to the core, and clearly doesn't work (are we talking pragmatism?) is a recipe for greater disaster.
These people are not pragmatists for they were largely in supportive roles to bring on the debacles we now all face. As others have said, a firing squad would make more sense, or charges of TREASON in the case of some, the ones who maneuvered the banking system to become the bedfellow of stock brokers, so that BETTING ON FUTURES, treating solid assets like a casino, has BROKEN the financial safety net for so many. It all qualifies as criminal conduct, were we in a society that could still separate the just from the unjust.
". So what's wrong with a picture that has allowed CEOS to make off like bandits, reduce wages of the work force, and while hording so much wonder why the "workers" can't afford the products, including "sexed up" mortgages sold as bets on debt (esoteric derivatives) to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars leveraged against what does not even exist!!!
Sioux Rose:
Beautiful discription of the mess we find ourselves in. No more need be said. You contained it all in one sentence.
As usual, a great comment Sioux Rose
Thomas Gilbert
"It all qualifies as criminal conduct, were we in a society that could still separate the just from the unjust." (Sioux Rose)
Without question.
Sioux Rose -- That's Arry. I only mention it because Arvy does post now and then.
(BTW, I'm a fan of your posts. They provide a kind of centering, a gravity...often keeping things from flying off into space by centrifugal force. We are more at home on a planet than in an asteroid belt.)
Great post.
I'm not certain why this seems such a revelation to Mr. Solomon. It has been clear as day since Obama emerged on the national scene that he is a mainstream politician, fully steeped in the postmodern political construct, which is one in which everything outside of mainstream discourse is tagged an "ideology". Anyone who listened to Obama's broadcast speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 could see he was being groomed for the role which he has indeed played. In fact, when some of we who post at Black Agenda Report predicted his nomination and election two years ago, we were greeted with the usual "are you kidding? He'd never live through the primaries". To which we used to respond that it's in the interest of the ruling elite to have someone with Obama's eloquence and magnetism out in front of the empire, a sort of JFK in sepia.
In August of 2006, a very interesting article on Obama's political alliances was published by Harper's Magazine called "Barack Obama Incorporated". I don't remember the author's name, but it documents Obama's ties to Archer Daniels Midland. And earlier that same summer, Obama gave an interview to the Chicago Tribune in which he projected the need for a missile strike on Iran, should it continue with its nuclear program. But these things are all ancient history, the sort of thing that gets swept under the carpet and denied during the emotions of an election year. The real factionalists, who Norman Solomon defines here as the ideologues of non-ideology, have helped obscure the actual political past of the President Elect.
Believe you me, any person who grew up Black in this country was initially excited at the prospects generated by Obama when his name started coming into national prominence four years ago. But a lot of us also know enough about the "democratic" party through decades of bitter experience and a steady feed of corporate Black figureheads in other areas of government to take anyone they bring forward not just with a grain, but the entire keg of salt. And that's why some of us, myself included, were so fiery all through this election year when the cult around Obama reached the levels of ridiculousness it reached with children's choirs and all else that nauseates.
A steady tip of the hat should go to Brother Adolph Reed, who peeped Obama back in 1996. He is the politician who Reed alludes to at the end of his essay about the corporatization of Black community politics called "Democrats I do hate" which appears in his book Class Notes.
Nicely put, FJ. Here is a link to the article you mentioned, "Barack Obama Incorporated."
Near the end of the article is this line: "one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a 'player.'"
I am sure Norman Solomon had the wits about him to discover much of what Ken Silverstein laid out in that article. Probably, Solomon was persuaded by the old FDR meme. In other words, that the people could lobby Obama to do the right thing once he got in power. I think the article, and subsequent bad decisions by Obama (FISA, bailout, etc.) show how highly unlikely it will be that a pressure campaign will succeed in moving Obama to represent the people.
If the American people had put up the millions in campaign donations that the corporations did for Obama, maybe it'd be a different story. But I think that's not really possible these days. The Democratic Leadership Council (corporate, right wingers in the Democratic Party) don't really want public participation and campaign donations. They like bundled corporate campaign dollars instead. The DLC essentially are Republicans in sheep's clothing.
Norman Solomon is trying to buy back a little street creds since he swallowed the Obama Koolaide. He drank it out of a fear of Republicans, but the Dem Party punchbowl still a toxic brew of corporatism and graft.
With the horrible Obama cabinet getting uglier every day, Solomon's only hope is to admit he made a mistake in stumping for a corporate stooge. As long as there's hope, he'll never admit the mistake, I suppose.
The lesson: don't compromise on your progressive ideals. It leads down the corporate rat hole. Always strive for objectivity and stay vigilant.
-TIA
Yes, I saw it coming when I read Obama's book audacity of hope. All ideals and his ideals alone. I knew then what we were in for as he would be up for grabs to the current ideologics of politics, pragmatically speaking of course.
These people create (by deregulation and other measures) the crisis and then they come back as part of the solution. The US is so mired in corruption only the corrupt seem to be running the show. The taxpayers and american public pay and pay - there is no bailout for them.
AIPAC is clearly showing it's power and influence in Obama's cabinet which is sad for Americans. Instead of choosing more peace minded leaders more hawkish dual nationalists are chosen.
I don't see this as pragmatical at all. Is this Israel's government or the people of America's?
I've had eight years of ideology. I don't want any more. Anyone can see what governing by ideology will produce.
I'm beginning to think that some people wouldn't be happy no matter who was elected or who they picked.
Aside from that we have enormously more important problems to solve than a bit of ideological disappointment.
m