Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Blacklisting Progressives: The Untold Story Beneath the Daschle Headlines
As every newspaper in America has been happy to report, Daschle worked with venture capitalist Leo Hindery after he left the Senate. Hindery was a top economic adviser to John Edwards and later to Barack Obama, and many had floated his name for U.S. Trade Representative or Commerce Secretary. Now, though, that won't be happening, as anyone mentioned near the Daschle flap is being shunned by the Obama administration.
But is that really why someone as accomplished as Hindery was never seriously considered for a top economic post in the administration? The media and the Obama administration would like us to believe yes - but the answer is no. It has far less to do with the Daschle situation and far more to do with Hindery's progressive economic ideology.
Buried in a Politico dispatch, we get the real story:
Hindery did his best to carve out his own public profile, with generous contributions to a range of Democratic-leaning organizations and a 2005 book, "It Takes a CEO," decrying outsourcing, Wal-Mart, and "an ethical and aesthetic 'race to the bottom'" in the media industry.He also hoped to land a job in the Obama administration, and he had a close Obama adviser - Daschle -- in his corner, the two Democrats said. United Steeelworkers union officials also backed him.
But while Hindery complained that he "waited for the phone to ring," a source said, Obama's aides appear never to have taken his bid seriously. One possible source of friction: Hindery had set himself up in opposition to Obama's top economic advisors, many of whom were associated with The Hamilton Project, an economic think tank that was the inheritor of former Treasury Secretary Rubin's generally pro-trade position.
In the same story, of course, we get hedge fund shark Steve Rattner - a huge Democratic fundraiser on Wall Street - bashing Hindery for backing populist Democratic candidates for local and national office.
And that's the big story here: Leo Hindery, one of the few business leaders to use his wealth to challenge deregulation, corporate trade deals and anti-worker policies was blacklisted by the Obama administration well before the Daschle flap ever happened - and he was blacklisted because he dared to clash with the same Wall Street Democrats whose corporate-backed policies destroyed the economy.
You can go ahead and tell yourself that this is just theory - just a single example. But that's willful ignorance, as the Hindrey scalping is only one chapter in what has been one long narrative arc whereby economic progressives have been deliberately shut out of top administration jobs. Just step back and think about it for a minute: Amid a stable of eminently qualified and well-respected progressives like James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Larry Mishel, Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy - the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman.
As the Nation's Chris Hayes shows, its the same in other key regulatory positions, as free market fundamentalists who created the problem take the helm of the regulatory agencies they tried to destroy. Indeed, the only movement progressive in a top economic position is Jared Bernstein, and he was relegated to an amorphous job in the Vice President's office.
And now we see that's not an accident. Though Obama won states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana on promises to challenge Wall Street and reform our trade policies, there has been a deliberate and calculated effort to stack the administration with the very Wall Street Democrats who created the problems he lamented, and shun those who have been fighting the good fight.
- Posted in
72 Comments so far
Show AllNow we can watch the debacle snowball with Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN as the front-runner as our next Surgeon General. As has been noted by many before, he is a stooge for the drug companies, an ignoramus about public health and a sworn foe of a single payer health system.
To Jesus Hussein Christ February 4th, 2009 9:29 am: Jesus H. Christ (are you presently on a bicycle built for two?) you're right -- Gupta is a corporate weenie who always defends the HMO status quo, and he's slick about it -- on CNN he'll play Mr. Smiley Nice Guy who wants poor moms and kids covered by insurance, and then turn around off-screen and support some neocon-disaster medical bill that fills his pockets and sticks it to the disadvantaged.
Michael Moore would have been a much better choice -- while he's not a doctor, nor does he play one on TV, he knows more about the various health care systems in the world than most American physicians. Another good choice would have been Dr. Quentin Young from Chicago. Young has been a long-time advocate for single-payer health care, and he's from Hyde Park, so I'm sure Obama's aware of him.
More on Quentin Young:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Young
http://www.uic.edu/sph/cade/horizon_hospice/conversation/young.htm
But he's purty.
Joe
...every single voter who supported Barack Obama because of his progressive economic platform
------------------------
How is increasing Defense spending ABOVE George Bush levels progressive economics?
How is continuting NAFTA progressive economics?
How is not raising the marginal tax rate on the upper income bracket to 70%, where it was before Reagan moved it down to 29% progressive economics? (Obama is even backing away from his pledge to move it back up to the Clinton level of a measly 3% higher).
Progressives in my little home town in Missouri were perplexed why I would not knock on doors for this man: if anyone cared to carefully read his website the answers were there all along - and those in Chicago knew that! He is not a true Progressive, he is much too much a politician to make real meaningful change - and this bipartisan logic will end up getting his political throat cut because the Repugs never play nice - This man is going to have to wise up quick if anything positive is going to come of this last election.
odoco February 4th, 2009 9:40 am: "...if anyone cared to carefully read his website the answers were there all along - and those in Chicago knew that! He is not a true Progressive, he is much too much a politician to make real meaningful change..."
I both read Obama's website and live in Chicago. On top of that, I once met Obama before he ran for office. He may not be a hard-core progressive in the Bernie Sanders mode, but he did push through a transparency bill when in the Illinois General Assembly which ended the practice of lobbyists bribing public officials with gifts rather than money, and sponsored and passed legislation to provide health care to mothers and children. Those are among his progressive accomplishments before he became a national figure.
You wrote: "...this bipartisan logic will end up getting his political throat cut because the Repugs never play nice - This man is going to have to wise up quick if anything positive is going to come of this last election."
He's been in office two weeks and has ended torture, closed Gitmo, subjected his staff to strict ethical rules and frozen their wages, among other things. I think it's way too early to panic and say 'it's time he wised up.' Obama beat the Clinton machine and the GOP -- he may know what he's doing. To put it another way, if we can easily figure out what he's doing, so can the opposition. I think he's laying a trap for the Republicans where their stubborn obstruction to his policies will further decimate the already declining GOP.
As someone said the other day, the three most prominent Republicans in the country are Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber's Helper. IMO, you couldn't buy better enemies.
Finally - the Emperor's new suit is modeled!!!!
But I could be wrong !
I certainly didn't vote for Obama because he represented any progressive cause. I voted for him because, unless I'm mistaken, all of the progressives in the House(I am not aware of any progressives in the Senate)are from the Democratic party and there were no viable third party candidates(I would NEVER vote Republican). Dennis Kucinich was the only Progressive to run for President, and I did vote for him in the Primary in Missouri. Where I can agree with Kucinich on EVERY issue I did not fully agree with Obama on ANY issue. He is in no way shape or form a Progressive. I don't think he can even pronounce the word.
Bernie Sanders is a strong progressive in the Senate.
So is Russ Feingold from Wisconsin.
This is why I voted for Ralph Nader. This is why so many people don't even bother to vote. We chastise those people, but look at the shoddy choices they're given, and the "lesser of two evils" ends up betraying the public anyway. Not that I wished for a McCain victory, but shit, it might as well have been.
Yeah, the symbolism's great, and we could have ended up with a worse president, but aside from that and a few left leaning picks and decisions, what is Obama but a softer Republican?
odoco-I got into arguments with Obama supporters when they called my home. They thought I was nuts for supporting Nader and gave me all the "Nader was a spoiler" garbage.
I still think we can push though. There is a sporting chance with this man. I'm not succumbing to cynicism.
Obama was better than McCain because of foreign policy. It is not that Obama is progressive on foreign policy, or even reasonable, but that McCain could very well have started WWIII. The corporate media determines who the viable candidates are, i.e. the political system has been completely gamed by the corporatists, so we are never left with any good choices. If you want real change, you need to forget about doing it within the existing political system. It ain't happening.
"Corporatists"
A new term coined right here. I love it!!! Says it all.
I believe that Naomi Klein has really pushed the term "corporatist," and other progressive writers have as well.
So it comes down to the USA having elected a warmonger (step-up war in Afghanistan, gradually withdraw from Iraq--maybe, hand over Palestine policy to AIPAC--i.e. do a Sherman with nukes) as opposed to a senile idiot warmonger with a potty mouth who just wants to nuke the world several times over.
Rainborowe
That's about it. A run-of-the-mill murdering, thieving warmonger who will kill many and steal much vs. an insane senile idiot warmonger who would be a danger to kill everyone (backed up by a VP just as dangerous).
"I still think we can push though. There is a sporting chance with this man. I'm not succumbing to cynicism."
how do you propose to 'push' obama to do anything?
is there a difference b/n cynicism and scepticism? cynicism is the belief that change is impossible. scepticism is the belief that the person(s) and/or strategies you are advocating as vehicles for change will not perform.
how much more evidence do you need to be sceptical?
Sceptic and cynic: thanks for the distinction. I'm a certified sceptic where Obama is concerned, but it's fightin' words if you call me a cynic---as I and other skeptics have often been called.
"Not that I wished for a McCain victory, but shit, it might as well have been."
Ah yeah. No difference. Cheney as attorney general, Rumsfeld at State, Liebermann, Homeland Defense, Coleman, FBI, Rove CIA and of course Palin running things as McCain lies in a coma.
Hey, I've got an idea, why not change your name to the greatrockfilledhead!
When are people going to get it through their thick heads that Obama is NOT progressive? Never has been, never will be.
His nominations are mostly conservative, not a liberal to be found.
This is the sausage making part of democracy, folks. This is the window from which occasionally the curtain gets drawn back, and there is room for public education and understanding as to how the game is played. People can learn from an article like this not to despair (tho' a few will) but how and who to watch as this country flounders around trying to find its way out of the mess that deregulation and plunder under the guise of "free markets" brought us. This is a fight for our future, not a time to give up.
Joe in Gainesville
odoco
Well said Joe: there is a constant push by the Republican minority to move this country back to the right - and Obama's "bipartisanship" is allowing them to do this - although through gross misrepresentation. Progressives around the world - not just in this country - need to move the Obama to the position that he promised - and that is to the left of center.
and just how are progressives supposed to 'move' obama anywhere?
odoco
Rush - by taking apart the political power base that keeps pushing him, as all others, to the right. The Progressive Movement will need to control the next election by moving true Progressives into the House and Senate. They do this by controlling the primary process, which the system realizes is their one huge weakness - because it is still the closest democratic tool residing with the people. The system is simply broken, not because of neglect, but because of malpractice and illegitimate purposes. We all know this: the corporations must be controlled; their toys in Congress taken away; their bought and paid for reps and senators sent to the trash bin; the militarization of America and the world must be sharply curtailed. How long will it take - who knows? But if we fail - we lose the country. That surely is obvious to all who care to truly, objectively, study the problem.
Nice guys finish last--always.
At least in the US.
Nobody respects a nice guy--what's respected are bullies and criminals who get away with it.
Yes, mojigato February 4th, 2009 11:20 am, that's how Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi became so popular, as well as Americans like Tom Paine, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain and Martin Luther King Jr. They all just kicked ass and took names.
I remind you, sir, that none of those folks was ever part of a US government.
Thoreau went to jail protesting paying taces for the invasion of Mexico.
And MLK was assassinated.
As for the foreigners, Jesus--if he existed--was given the death penalty, and Gandhi was assassinated.
Only Buddha--if he existed--died of old age.
Among the foreigners, that makes only Buddha a winner--maybe. But then there were all those buddhists that died in wars in the 20th century....
Maybe you would like to mention a nice guy who DOES exist in the US and who IS winning the race.
mojigato February 4th, 2009 7:24 pm:"I remind you, sir, that none of those folks was ever part of a US government."
Check your original post -- you didn't say anything about them being part of the US government.
You wrote: "Maybe you would like to mention a nice guy who DOES exist in the US and who IS winning the race."
Aside from the millions of anonymous 'nice guys' who are 'winning' in the sense of leading good lives in this country, I would point to Obama. We all have our human flaws and blind spots -- even you, mojigato -- but I think Obama is trying to do his best, and he did manage to win the election against all odds. There is also Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. Bob Wexler, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Russ Feingold, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, whom we can make an honorary 'guy' for the purposes of this discussion. They all also won elections in the recent past.
If you think Obama is going to be your savior, you are an even bigger chump than I thought you were.
And I said: in th US--in my original post. To the best of my knowledge Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha et al were not gringos. or are you racist creeps claiming them, too?
Tell me about that nice guy Paul Whatever his name was whose plane was offed. Tell me how he finished.
Actually, don't bother--you have your head way too depp in the sand to even read this post.
mojigato February 5th, 2009 11:31 am: "If you think Obama is going to be your savior, you are an even bigger chump than I thought you were."
I didn't say he was a savior; I said he was a nice guy. I've met him twice.
"And I said: in th US--in my original post. To the best of my knowledge Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha et al were not gringos. or are you racist creeps claiming them, too?"
'Racist creeps'? Who's the racist here -- you don't even know what race I am.
"Tell me about that nice guy Paul Whatever his name was whose plane was offed. Tell me how he finished."
That was Paul Wellstone and he died in a plane crash. So, what's your point?
"Actually, don't bother--you have your head way too depp in the sand to even read this post."
You have your head way too deep somewhere else it seems.
Like I said after his inaugural, Obama is the new #1 Enemy of the People, and he must be fought just as BushCo was fought. I invite folks to read Putin's Davos Speech and compare it to Obama's thoughts on the crisis.
Humpty-Dumpty is representative of the Ponzi scam that is the US Imperial economy, which Wall Street's greed masters pushed off the wall. Obama was chosen because of his capacity to stupify the electorate while allowing those who pushed to pick up the pieces and try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. The endeavor will fail and the USA will have swirled further down the drain. States from California to Rhode Island are facing Bankruptcy--TODAY. Putin called the crisis a "Perfect Storm." I submit he's correct, except that the wave is still building in size.
How ironic, sounds like Putin's been reading the libertarian economist, von Mises.
Yea, I read that. Putin's speech makes him sound like some sort of naive simpleton, trusting in the corporate masters, though I suspect it is a pose.
"Putin's speech makes him sound like some sort of naive simpleton..."
We must have read different speeches. You must have missed the part where Putin calls for and outlines why we need a new global economic paradigm. At the end of his speech, he got a very strong standing ovation. His suggestions make everything said by Obama tepid and incapable of solving the crisis. Indeed, Putin said we must have a new economic paradigm in order to solve the crisis, and you call him "naive."
Sioux Rose
KARLOF: I heard those intimations, too. Putin is calling for new innovations, and is basically saying that while Russia has a pretty good handle on things due to its own surpluses, he recognizes the importance of nations working together, even in redesigning monetary systems to withstand these types of vicissitude. Maybe Russia will fill the gap left by the dearth of meaningful US leadership (that's been ongoing for quite some time).
I was referring to this from his speech:
"Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.
"And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."
Putin is an opportunistic strongman who always does what is best for Putin first and foremost. I seriously doubt Putin really believes what he says, as he is always calculating, though he probably does believe that his speech would encourage, or at least not discourage, investment in Russia that he can benefit from. If he saw his own benefit in it, he would nationalize any industry tomorrow, regardless of whether it was the best thing for Russia or the world economy.
And I certainly was not defending Obama. He is worse. But that does not mean I trust or respect Putin's opinion or even believe he would ever sincerely express it.
Sioux Rose
KARLOF1: Thank you for posting the link. Putin sounds like a visionary, humanitarian, and statesman. I love the part about investing in people; and is there anything more radiant than a former warrior speaking of alternatives to militarism and investment therein? This is the speech one would have expected of an American statesman four decades ago.
Most astrologers see Russia as a Scorpio entity; and Scorpio, like the scorpion, outlasts the nuclear blasts in the SW desert. It is also a symbol for the phoenix capable of rising from its own ashes. Many under-estimated Russia, not realizing it holds this potential to recreate itself anew. I like what Putin is saying, and I believe others at Davos heard him and some will be moved.
I hope you are right.
Joe
Deleted.
Putin's speech was complex and sometimes eloquent with many elements of truth and some statements aimed at idealists. But I detect that when the mist clears, at the hard core was a desire to protect the Russian oil industry.
Joe
I agree with becoming disillusioned with Obama. Howard Dean will be a big test for me. I think he is a progressive and the best for the job of HHS. As for the stimulus package, I think getting usury laws back would be more stimulating than anything now proposed. Give all the millions of people back the 30 percent interest they are paying on their credit cards. Take the money back from the credit card industry thieves and give it back to the most vulnerable people who it is crushing. That won't cost the taxpayer anything --especially the interest on the debt we will be paying for years.
No appointment is permanently carved in stone.
As profiles of areas of critical rebalancing emerge progressive organizations will need to be able to form strong coalitions. The corruption will not disappear over night. The culture of greed and corruption need BRIGHT light shown on it. Our voices and those of journalists like today's NYT column on the wall streeters who 'just don't get it' is a beacon - and in this dark, a welcome one.
The numbers on single payer health care have not been around all that long, nor has the financial crisis. Think about it. The overall tide virtually screaming for reform is going shift over time as the interlocking concerns gain higher profile. PUSH!!
Though some might say that writing representatives is a lost cause, I encourage folks to check out the organization feature that CD has provided, get on 'action alert' email lists and have parties to celebrate writers cramp.
Many of these groups are setting the groundwork for progressive grassroots coalitions that will cross party lines as never before. It takes millions of us to set the record on an ongoing basis of what priorities we hold to be important.
In the long run we're looking at the life of majority viability and letter writing is a key aspect. Use it or lose it. These progressive lobbies need to be able to hold up the record of their representation. They're researching, documenting, organizing and providing tools that should not be ignored out of cynicism or dispair. I hope folks will participate in growing them.
"Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy - the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman."
"As the Nation's Chris Hayes shows, its the same in other key regulatory positions, as free market fundamentalists who created the problem take the helm of the regulatory agencies they tried to destroy."
The more things change (Obama era), the more they stay the same (Clinton era)!
Ya know Barrack, if the people wanted a repeat of the Clinton-Rubin-Greenspan show, they would have voted for Hillary!
"here today, here tomorrow"
nagamaki February 4th, 2009 12:59 pm, that's a good point, but let's not forget Obama is in charge and they will either follow his policies or be shown the door. Obama picked people who, for better or worse, know how Washington works and how to get things done. This may turn out to be a terrible decision, we'll see, but he knew from the experience of Carter and Clinton that it takes years for a new crowd to establish the knowledge, contacts and trust to move legislation through Congress and entrenched bureaucracies to change.
I do agree with the author of this article, though, that someone like Dean Baker or Paul Krugman would have been a much better choice than Geithner for Treasury Secretary, but he probably didn't want to give the financial sector screaming fits -- the WSJ would have been printing its headlines in blood and the CNN Money cast would have collectively slit their wrists on the air. Not that that would have been a bad thing.
The Fascist Reich and our own Bio-Terrorists never forgave Tom Daschle
for standing up for Human Rights and standing up to the USAPATRIOT Act.
What should we expect from an AIPAC sock puppet of another color?
In the same story, of course, we get hedge fund shark Steve Rat(tner) - a huge Democratic fundraiser on Wall Street . . .
This piece segues well with two others here today, by Dean Baker and Thomas Frank. They should all be read together to get a good picture of what Obama's real, as opposed to hoped for, economic agenda is stacking up to be. He's pro-Wall Street all the way, pro-bankster bailout, pro-lemon socialism, and 100% anti-progressive. He's what David Michael Green calls "regressive." But my goodness! At least he isn't a Republican! This is what centrist Democrats deliver to we the gullible people.
StephenB
Obama may be driven left by the force of circumstances. If he doesn't want to be a Jimmy Carter one term president, he will have to craft economic recovery programs that really work, not sops to the tax cut maniacs whose main purpose is to disable government. He has brought back science, is dealing with global warming and is halting Bush environmental devastation. He will also improve the courts and the whole range of justice. I was never under any illusion that he was any better than Clinton politically. But the nineties were a boom period. Obama doesn't have that luxury. Rubin's policies are simply not going to work now. Even Summers knows that and is pushing infrastructure. FDR was not a real progressive in 1933. And he had plenty of conservatives and centrists in his cabinet. Force of circumstances and popular outside movements like the labor movement as well as the dire economic situation pushed him left. People also neglect to mention that Obama has appointed Hilda Solis, one of the most progressive, pro-labor people in Congress secretary of labor. Labor may well be going into an active, organizing mode. They've been in eclipse for years, but the time is ripe for a rebound, and Obama and Solis, with their support of the Employee Free Choice Act, will be a big help. This is the progressive side of Obama. Also the man is very bright and flexible. Don't sell him short. I'm tired of all the corporate conspiracy crap. Elites are molten. They and the economic/political process are not fixed in cement.
Thanks for that, StephenB February 4th, 2009 2:01 pm. Obama is not the perfect progressive, and never pretended to be, but he is sane, smart and clear-eyed and, I think, will be pushed by events to generally do the right thing.
Before the election, I read reams of words claiming that Obama was the tool of Wall Street. Well, his top Wall Street contributor, Lehman Bros., went under, he's publicly demanding accountability from the financial sector, and he just capped their executive pay at $500K, so it seems he isn't doing much to help them. I wouldn't sell this man short -- he has accomplished amazing things in the past, overcoming long odds in a short period of time to become the president. I think he's just as wily, in a good way, as Lincoln or FDR, and he will change the direction this country's headed. (He has to or we're finished.) He's also a student of history, so let's hope that stops him from repeating the mistakes of the past.
Wow, CD is becoming a home for under-cut-Obama rightwingers trying to sound progressive.
We've seen more real change in two weeks than in the previous 50-years. No true progressive is sorry to see Daschle out. He has been in the pocket of some of the most corrupt corporations in the world.
"Hindery did his best to carve out his own public profile, with generous contributions to a range of Democratic-leaning organizations..."
In other words he hoped to buy an office. He paid money and yet his phone never rang. Gee, whoever heard of not being able to buy a high-level govenment job? No wonder he feels cheated. I can never forgive Obama for not selling jobs to rich guys and bringing more venture capitalists into government.
Why are Sirota's pieces still being posted on CD? He's gone over to the dark side now.