Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Testicular Politics: Obama and the Big Dogs
Is Obama Tough Enough to Stand Up to the Titans of Finance?
The big dogs of banking and finance are playing a rough game of bump-and-run with our president, trying to knock him off balance and demonstrate their dominance. The best names in Wall Street--Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase--pumped out happy talk about quarterly earnings, then announced that they intend to give back the government's money (more than $50 billion, if counted honestly). The crisis, they announce, is over for them. They want to be free of official meddling in their private affairs. The arrogance is breathtaking, even for Wall Street bankers.
Forget the financial numbers. What we are witnessing is a high-stakes melodrama of glandular politics. This rival power center, though gravely weakened, is contesting for control with the president. Think of dogs circling one another to establish who will be leader of the pack. For three decades, the Wall Street guys in good suits have ruled the economy, demanding deference from the political system and from corporate managements, too. Those who failed to follow them were punished, either through stock prices or election financing. Despite their catastrophic failure, the surviving bankers and financiers are trying to hold on to their thrones.For the last couple of weeks, they have poked the kid in the chest and mocked his economic advisors with condescending gestures. Jamie Dimon of the Morgan bank handed Treasury Secretary Geithner a fake check for $25 billion. They threw complicating wrenches into the government's financial rescue plan. Their essential message, crudely colloquial, was intended for Barack Obama : "You don't have the balls to take charge of us."
The question is: Are they right? Obama seems cowed by their bluster. He certainly looks reluctant to take them on in a public way or refute their version of reality. This president wants to govern through public-spirited cooperation. The financial titans play hardball in return. I say "seems" because we do not yet know about Obama and how he will resolve this mess. The administration has been stalling action on the troubled banks, as if it believes in its own wishful forecasts about an early recovery for the economy. The bankers trumped him by announcing, hey, things are already better for us. So back off.
The bankers think they have the president cornered. His rescue plan cannot possibly succeed without much more money--hundreds of billions more--that Congress will be extremely reluctant to provide (Obama hasn't yet had the nerve to ask for it). The bankers' offer to return their welfare checks is a cute gesture, but a bluff. They know Obama's government is committed to save them, whatever it costs. As usual, the big dogs want to have it both ways--take the public's money but promise nothing in return.
Roughly speaking, that has been Obama's posture, too. He acts as though the old order must be restored with public money, but without forceful government direction. He can call their bluff if he has the courage--shut down a couple of big banks, take control of the system--and the public would cheer. During the campaign, Obama demonstrated he is a great teacher--his political vision changed the country. But we do not yet know if he is a confident political leader willing to use his power against formidable adversaries in order to get his way. Every potential rival is now taking his measure. Weakness would doom him.
The financial crisis poses the first great moral dilemma of the Obama presidency. Sometime in the next few months, he will be compelled to choose between his technocratic inclinations--rescuing certain financial institutions deemed "too big to fail"--and the obvious moral wrongness of his policy of rewarding the very players who caused our national disaster. The broad public does not doubt that this is morally wrong. I saw a Zogby opinion poll the other day that said only 6 percent of the public supports the financial bailouts. Obama is on the wrong side of that bipartisan consensus.
The moral dilemma in the financial crisis is oddly parallel to Obama's reluctant approach on the torture issue. The president bravely made public the sickening documents from the Bush administration that reveal how CIA and Justice Department officials rationalized their illegalities and authorized crimes against humanity. Yet the president said it would be wrong to prosecute (or even investigate) any of the CIA agents or military officers who committed these crimes. Likewise, we are told it would be wrong to punish the financial malefactors or look too closely into how they engineered the gross fraud and false valuations that destroyed trillions of dollars in American wealth. Let's not dwell on the past, the president says, let's look forward.
But everything Obama does now--or fails to do--becomes an inescapable precedent for the future, defining the true meaning of law and moral principle. The president's rationale on government-led torture sounds dangerously close to the line of defense invoked by Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. We were only following orders. CIA barbarians are invited to hide behind that excuse.
So in a sense are the bankers from Wall Street. They were merely doing what the financial markets wanted and what the government allowed. Rescuing these players now, while declining to force fundamental structural changes on the banking system, would essentially ratify the bankers' arrogant beliefs. They are too important to fail. The government will never let it happen. Despite their destructive behavior, they will be allowed to remain in power and free to do it all again.
I do not doubt the president's good intentions, but if he is not vigilant, the "Obama precedent" could prove to be an ugly legacy. His name might someday be linked to wilful evasion of misdeeds and the degradation of law and moral principle. When great crimes are committed in the future by government or by powerful private interests, people in authority might decide to let them go by, citing the national interest and recalling how Barack Obama dealt with similar events.
- Posted in
90 Comments so far
Show AllIs Obama Tough Enough to Stand Up to the Titans of Finance?
Apparently not. He has yet to stand up to Pelosi and the ladies of the House.
"Apparently not. He has yet to stand up to Pelosi and the ladies of the House."
Thomas ! You just stripped Obama of his masculinity ! How could you ? Actually, it's cool. He never had any except for the corporate, military, and religious shills against Main Street. You just gave me a great idea to use against my annoying Obamabots. At this rate, he and his wife could trade places since the Constitution is long trashed anyway. I look forward to seeing the Obamabots going haywire. LOL ! :)
How do we expect Obama to "stand up to" those who run this system? He got tens of millions of dollars in campaign funding from these bad boys, he is a product of this system and seems incapable of seeing the view from outside the box.
The answer is simple.
Customers: Take all of your money (checking, savings, 401k, etc.) out of these banks and put them in credit unions. The massive run will force these goliaths to shut down, effectively forcing Wall St. to collapse like a house of cards.
there isn't anything left to take out...
Good point. I should say whatever meager amount of money anyone has (if it all is not gone).
What you're suggesting is that people take control of their own finances (and lives) and invest in places that support the common good. What planet do you live on?
Actually, it's very good advice, and some of what I have done and am doing.
In this society, money rules. Fools ignore this.
If we starve the beast, the beast dies. Masochists ignore this.
Hopefully a sensible planet, although sometimes I wonder about that. I am happy to hear you are moving your money into financial institutions that promote the common good. That primarily is why I like credit unions. I have done the same and am much happier. Indeed, we must starve the beast.
My credit union just LOWERED the interest rate on my credit card from 12% to 8.75%.
Actually, I've been a credit union member for over 15 years. It made sense then, and it does even more so now. Credit unions are community institutions that keep money within communities. It helps the commons.
I also have my IRA in a SRI mutual fund group.
The better off we all are, the better off we all are.
Credit Unions are by far much safer. They don't take outrageous risks with other peoples' money like the too-big-to-fail predators. Buying gold would also help the cause.
Oregoncharles
I know of a credit union that pays close to 5% on checking accounts balances. Far better than any CD account or savings in a regular bank. Check it out. Credit unions are the way to go.
Looks like the Alchemists of Money already won. Obysmal took a dive for the short money.
Perhaps mistaken, do you recall that Alchemists attempted to turn
L E A D __ i n t o __ G O L D
Whereas the recent Titanic's of fish'iance are more appropriately likened to anti - Alchemists, who are well proven to turn
G O L D __ i n t o __ L E A D
Don't give up yet, Mordechai!
There's news that China "doubled" its Gold Reserves:
http://news.goldseek.com/LemetropoleCafe/1240765200.php
"Is Obama Tough Enough to Stand Up to the Titans of Finance?"
Jeez Bill, they got him elected! Wall Street represents his biggest campaign donors. Obama is not going to stand up "to" the "Titans of Finance", he will stand up FOR them! Otherwise, why would Summers and Geithner be in his cabinet?
EGG-ZACTLY.
Greider and his ilk always have to insert the obligatory "I heart Obama" clause into their critical observations so that they don't lose any invitations on the left-liberal cocktail-party/dinner-party circuit.
The modus operandi of Obama is here (from Mike Whitney):
"The Treasury Secretary knows his plan won't fix the banking system; he's just hoping that the economy rebounds before the government is forced to nationalize the big banks. It's just a stalling ploy, but, even so, there are risks. As the economy worsens, the likelihood of another financial meltdown or a run on the dollar increases.
..."
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22465.htm
We have sided with our captors since 1980. Stockholm Syndrome. BO is a skinny, weak, chain-smoking lawyer who is wondering about now how he ever wished this fate on himself and his family. He has no free will here, and unfortunately neither did GWB. If we were to somehow wipe them all off the world stage others would replace them in a heartbeat. Some like it and come back for more. Others are threatened with an unfortunate reduction of their historical reputations and slither on their belly: Look at Bill Clinton $42 , he's still working for Bush $41 in agreeing to debate Bush $43 in Toronto this year. It's the Bohemian Club all over again. Skull and Bones. Grim, slimy, elites, controlling their little territories and producing gold year in and year out.
michael jordan
http://sites.google.com/site/apolloguide/
Unfortunately for America, Obama is the bankers water boy. What he lacks in real life courage and intellect, he makes up for on the basketball court. There, doesn't that make you feel better now!
Actually, no. I'd rather have a polio-stricken chief executive with a pair of 'nards, than this "all things to all people" sellout who's got a decent body and a decent game on the court.
Considering Mr. Greider's article and much else I have heard and seen of the Obama presidency, I'm ready to declare a new title for it, from the prospective of many progressives, as The Subjunctive Presidency. How many places per square bit of cyber-space contain the mood of "if," "perhaps," "he could," "if he would only," it's possible," etc.? Greider sets up the relation of Obama with Wall Street as a testicular struggle with an unknown outcome: can this economy be saved? Who will have the balls to prevail in this struggle? Who knows? It's easy enough to define the villains who set up the perils of Pauline, but will Mighty Mouse or whatever other hero come to her rescue before the movie is ended? This is an attractive way to make "news" of any disaster, to pose as problematic the motives of the Craigslist killer or the motives of BHO in releasing torture documents declaring the acts described therein as "shameful," then promising not to prosecute any CIA operatives acting under "legal guidance," and even going to Langley to thank the same people for their great service to the country.
By trying to be literally all things to all people, Obama manages to be nothing reliable to anyone. Everything is "possible" with this administration. Obama could do obviously progressive things like declaring clearly and forcefully for the Employee Choice Act or against NAFTA, putting single payer on the "table" as his own "scratch" health care plan, declare an immediate end to U.S. involvement in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, read the riot act to Israel on its policies toward Palestine, etc. etc. He could do all these things, but will he? The Subjunctive Presidency. Can you even WAIT to see how "this thing will end?" As a creature of Hollywood celebrities as well as Wall Street titans, you might expect that his presidency will be given the Hollywood ending treatment that things work out "in the end" with the best dramatic resolution. Or maybe there will be more a Samuel Beckett ending in which the play ends in about the same way it starts. Maybe, maybe, maybe....a Subjunctive Presidency which persists partly because intellectuals in his "progressive base" don't want finally to admit that he has just screwed up and there's going to be no "happy ending" to this particular story.
Mr. Obama has a 64 percent job approval rating; but only 6 percent approve of his handling of the financial problems.
Go figure.
Hoytdouglas: A stunning set of figures: "go figure" indeed! Best I can figure is that Americans are bamboozled by the Obama "style" into believing he's doing the "best he can" under the "impossible odds" he faces with the financial "mess" he inherited from Bush and the big dog bullying of nasty Wall Street "titans" as described by Mr. Greider. Again its the dramatic perils of Pauline struggle of a pure heroine against the odds of those evil forces. Since Greider's piece was first published, we've had the precious piece of "style" propaganda of the courageous one displaying his testicular power by calling together the "titans" of the credit card industry and telling them "to their faces," that American consumers are not going to take their abusive lending practices any more. Now that's the way to handle those guys, Barack! It appeared that some of the "chastised" ones could hardly keep from laughing at this dressing-down, like kids who let Mom rant on about their misbehavior cause she needs to do that once in a while to let off the steam before she goes back to being a kids-indulgent Mom.
What we are experiencing is that pragmatism is the rubber-band of politics. Or, alternatively, its fig-leaf.
Ah how the great armchair set pontificate!
"Obama is weak, spineless, gutless, bought..." etc! One can only imagine what a wonderous mess the average person would make of our National financial situation!
Present world affairs pit unprincipled operatives against Obama, who I believe, actually is committed to "the rule of Law" and community welfare.
The whole "needs balls" and "he ain't tough enough" crowd seem to overlook the fact that when the principled and the unprincipled conflict - initially the unprincipled look like victors. For them there is no restraint, nothing beyond their rule of force... yet it is possible for the Principled to win in the end by the support of the constituency rising up en mass to demand that the rule of Law is the rule of the land. The President cannot do this alone. He is the figurehead of the government and democratic leadership requires that it is the people who must stand up first - so that their figurehead can with their with substantive support, set policy.
Instead today we have so-called progressive commentary using the same mud slinging as the worst of the right wing zealots! How is it "progressive" for armchair pundits, watching from tthe sidelines to denigrate and demean the efforts of one who has walked the road and paid the price? This nation got enmeshed in this muddle by the abandonment of personal responsibility by the citizenry. To claim that critique and denigration will repair it - is just more of the same.
Blaming our nation's ills on Obama's considered style of Leadership is a sorry excuse for a deficit of intelligent/creative thinking and action undertaken by the people the government is hired to serve. The Bush Cheney years are proof that "balls" cause a lot more problems than they solve. Aggression and Combative leadership are the way facism takes control. Humanity would better be served by leaders who can operate from a higher space than testicles!
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
This is really sad. In 2000, my wife and I thought Colin Powell was a man of principle and honor. If he had run, we would have voted for him.
Then, when push came to shove, he lied and apologised for his master's actions and tried to justify them, even when they went against what he had said he stood for. In short, he became what used to be referred to as a house n-----.
Obama came along and, with grave misgivings, we supported him. We thought his constitutional background would lead to his expressing his indignation by putting the Constitution back in force, intact and functioning.
Now in power, he is providing immunity for torturers and for their masters in high places, he is giving the banksters anything they wish, he is widening the wars that are tearing us apart for the enrichment of the oligarchy, he is widening the surveillance society, posse comitatus is still out and the NorthCom combat brigades are still in.
Damn! Just another house n-----.
Frankly, I think we've had it.
"Frankly, I think we've had it."
So do I.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Yep.
Ditto.
But there is one last thing to do, isn't there?
Another Ditto.
First line:
"The big dogs of banking and finance are playing a rough game of bump-and-run with our president, trying to knock him off balance and demonstrate their dominance"
HEY! He appointed them!
I actually saw one of those arrogant bastards on MSNBC advocating investing in the big financial institutions "too big to fail" because the government would always be there to pick up the tab.
Time to collar our white-collar pirates!
"Why are you a pirate?" "That's where the money is," said the young Somali native.
"Why do you turn toxic sub-prime mortgages into AAA rated securities?" That's where the money is, answered the young Wall Streeter.
From Dr Wu's latest book: "Your Pirates and Mine"
"What a fine mess you made, Mr. Banker."
The trouble with the large banks and with Goldman-Sachs in particular, is that it runs the government-as in, Government-Sachs. I, for one, would let G-S, BA, Citi go down the tubes and return government to the taxpayers.
It was not for nothing that President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex running the country. Turned out, it's true--now it's called the Wall Street/Pentagon complex.
Who is in charge of all of us? Why, none other than Larry Summers (Wall Street) and Robert Gates (Pentagon). Obama is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs, The congress is all bought and paid for, the media is corporate run. Is there a way out of this fine mess?
Community organizers, by and large, have to be nice guys. We all know where they finish, don't we?
In Washington you're in trouble if they're not afraid of you.
I'm just hoping that when he has to do what needs to be done, he will.
Community organizers are not nice guys. They are guys (or gals) working for a non profit organization. What is a non profit organization? It is a place for rich people to put their money to work doing what will be good for the rich. They control their money in the non profit. If they paid those funds in taxes the people could decide where it goes and what gets done. Oh how terrible that could be for the extremely wealthy! They put the tax funds in a non profit and they only allow the non profit to do small things that won't upset their wheel barrow full of money.
Both the President and the First Lady have a background working for non profits. That is, working for the very rich. Everything is ok for them and their pay masters.
But not for us.
Your analysis is rather skewed. Your opinion of the work of nonprofits is simply silly.
ha ha ha ha !!! credit card bubble...
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/12loweringtheante/loweringtheante.html
Don't freak out. He's handling it.
The option to employ the tactic used by FDR in a similar crisis may have already passed Obama by: Undertake hundreds of bold actions in the first 100 days, then pick and choose what to fight for and save, all the while challenging the public spiritedness of those who close down the rest. Proceeding with caution gives just a few targets which will fail when attacked if they were offered only with hesitancy in the first place.
Is Obama Tough Enough to Stand Up to …
N O P E
Get it right, it is the ƒ ⊃ © king _ T I T A N I C S _ of _ d e a d _ f ish ' i a n c e
They're already well doomed for the job, and pin-stripped fish food
Elizabeth Warren (chair of TARP Congressional Oversight Panel) says that she has tried for weeks and has not been given the details of the "stress test". She also said "I don't have a badge and a gun. The power of this panel is derived entirely from the voice of the American people. If they stay out of the policy debates, then Treasury can spend at will and reshape the American economy with no one in the room but insiders. If they are involved, the policies will look different."
I am not ready to say it is over. If Elizabeth Warren does not get the facts and accounting that she is authorized to get, then that is grounds to fire Summers and Geithner and to get repaid. We have to keep pushing for that. It will either yield results or will clarify who's who and what's what for the public.
I think the left is too quick to fold and abandon an important fight where there are a lot of facts and public support on our side. In contrast the right will go on and on like pit bulls based on nothing... (see Norm Coleman or the Starr Commission or Ahmadinejad's nukes).
Don't give up. Keep on talking. Organize.
Joe
I agree totally with you that Elizabeth Warren is one of the few best hopes we lowly citizens have left. I actually even wrote her a letter a couple days ago trying to encourage her to bite down hard on the banksters' ankles like a pit-bull and never let up until she brings them in tears to justice! I also told her, in all bold letters like this, to NEVER FORGET THAT THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL DO IN YOUR LIFE!! Of course, I have no idea whether she even read the letter, but if LOADS of us sent her similar messages of strong support, stressing that it is crucial that she show the COURAGE that no one else, especially Obama, is showing, then maybe, just maybe, we can get her committee to unravel enough new fraudulent behavior to broaden the inquiry, to thus unravel still more fraud, etc. until finally the whole country is talking about the sordid details of how terribly we've all been robbed by financial finks, and hence begin to demand more inquiries etc., until our side starts to pick up momentum and win!
It simply boggles my mind that we are rewarding these criminals with hundreds of billions of dollars, with no transparency about where any of it is going, when we should be trying them in court and hauling their asses off to rot in jail for many a year per crime committed -- and in most cases that would be hundreds!
Agreed, Joe.
Re. Elizabeth Warren - she was on The Daily Show recently (interesting how it takes a comedy show to get real information...and a sad commentary), and said that previous Treasury Sec Paulson guaranteed that the American taxpayers would not be out any money because of the bailout, that we would be repaid dollar for dollar. In fact, we got...no, you all have to see it for yourselves:
http://tinyurl.com/d2lbt9
'I do not doubt the president's good intentions'
Then why the Hell not? This is what is absolutely more demoralizing to The People than the Overt Right Wing trash, these liberals who 'do not doubt the good intentions'! How can one ever get organized with this defeatist mind set? You simply need to doubt the president's good intention, Mr Greider.
Conservatives got us into this mess and you're going to get us out?
right.
i.f. stone's approach was the only correct one---all governments lie, and the job of the journalist is to dig up the truth and confront them with it.
intentions don't matter, any more than flowery rhetoric.