Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Mystique of 'Free-Market Guy' Obama
No matter what the facts are, some liberal activists and leaders persist in seeing President Obama as a principled progressive reformer who lives and breathes the campaign rhetoric about "change you can believe in."
When he compromises, it's not Obama's fault - it's the opposition. Retreat is never a sell-out but a shrewd tactic, part of some secret long-range strategy for triumphant reform.
He's been in the White House eight months. It's time for activists take a harder look at Obama. And a more assertive posture toward him.
Because if Obama believes it's okay to pass healthcare "reform" that subsidizes insurance firms without a robust public option and he dispatches still more troops to Afghanistan, it could demobilize progressive activists while emboldening the Teabag & Beck crowd to bring the GOP back from the dead in low-turnout congressional elections next year. That would be a rerun of the 1994 rightwing triumph brought on by President Clinton's weakness (e.g. healthcare reform) and corporatism (e.g. the business-friendly NAFTA).
Some activists still see Obama as a brilliant political superhero who - although maddeningly slow to fight back against his opponents - always manages to win in the end . . . like Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman.
But watching Obama last weekend on the news shows gave little reason for confidence. It's hard to win the public toward reform if you accept - as Obama often does - the rightwing terms of debate. The right frames healthcare as a debate over a dangerously over-intrusive government taking away individual freedom. The left says it's about greedy insurance and drug companies - with CEOs getting paid $10 million or $20 million per year - putting profits above public good.
Last weekend, when he was repeatedly asked to comment on Jimmy Carter's view about anti-Obama animosity being racially motivated, Obama kept wielding the rightwing frame about big "intrusive" government. On ABC, Obama talked about people being "more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."
On NBC, Obama said: "This debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate." He asked: "What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?"
The president has a huge bully pulpit, which he's largely squandered.
I've heard him discuss healthcare close to ten times in recent weeks
without once hearing him rally the public against the corporate greed
that leaves our country No. 1 in healthcare spending and 37th in health
outcomes, on par with Serbia. Without a populist challenge to corporate
profiteering, what's left is either a bloodless debate about "cost
containment" or a rightwing debate about "big government." Neither
mobilizes the public toward progressive change.
Recent U.S. history shows that you can't serve corporate interests at
the same time you're seeking reform - of healthcare or Wall Street or
any other sector. Not when big corporations are the problem . . . and
the major obstacles to change.
Placating big business en route to social reform is like downing a flask of whiskey en route to kicking alcoholism.
Yet there was the Obama White House this summer entering into secret deals with the pharmaceutical lobby protecting that industry's outsized profits.
If Obama is radical about anything, it's about NOT rocking corporate boats.
That's why he received more Wall Street funding than any candidate in history and why - before he was a front-runner in early 2007 - he was raising more money from the biggest Wall Street banks than even Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, presidential candidates from New York.
That's why - as soon as Hillary left the race - he went on CNBC and assured big business: "Look: I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
That's why he declared to the New York Times last March that his economic policies were absolutely not socialist, but rather "entirely consistent with free market principles."
That's why during his 2008 "I love the market" interview on CNBC, he shunned the "populist" label.
President Franklin Roosevelt showed in the 1930s that major reform is possible if a populist upsurge of ordinary people is mobilized to overcome the entrenched opposition of business interests - derided by FDR as the "economic royalists."
The problem today is that Obama doesn't seem to have a populist bone in his body. A smart guy, he should know that it's absurd - in an era when a shrinking number of ever-larger corporations dominate Congress and regulators as they deform markets in industries like banking and healthcare - to keep believing we have a "free market." Yet he waxes on about being a "free-market guy."
I guess he's smart enough NOT to call himself "a corporate guy."
Liberal activists need to be smart enough to see Obama for the status quo politician he is - and to act accordingly.
126 Comments so far
Show AllObama must think we Americans are pretty dull-witted not to be able to see through his "change you can believe in" mantra throughout his election and the reality of his performance once he was elected.
Based on Obama's performance, only the "dyed-in-the-wool" democratic "sheeple" could possibly believe he is living up to his promises.
Time will tell whether we have more "thinkers" in the Democratic Party than unthinking hangers-on. Real Democrats will deny him a second term and seek a candidate who will be serious about putting our Democratic beliefs and principles into ACTION!
No matter who is nominated & elected, the policy will be endless war & military spending, further upward transfers of wealth, with the corporate elite controlling news coverage & essentially writing all legislation.
But this policy can be cloaked under 2 different costumes. If a Democrat is elected, as seems likely, the foregoing will take place with more smiles, and more pseudo-liberal rationales. Obama will claim to be introducing "health care for the people," or "protecting the environment," or some such BS. The militarism will be presented in milder tones, emphasizing themes like "stabilization" rather than "killing our enemies."
On the other hand, if the president were McCain, there would be no smiley face. There will be more in-your-face militarism, with overtly blood-thirsty rhetoric. There will be more blatant pandering to the Religious Right.
That's the only "choice" the system will permit.
What do I want to see changed in the political landscape? Well, on a daydream basis, I'd like to see the US government overthrown by the people of the United States, with the society reorganized to function on a socialist basis. I'd like to see all the war criminals & war profiteers put behind bars for life, with all their personal assets confiscated. The Supreme Court should be replaced, being an illegitmate body that has egregiously betrayed its mission. The corporate media should be replaced, reorganized from the ground up. Many large businesses should be nationalized, starting with the oil companies & Wall St. The military should be downsized by about 90%, with virtually all overseas bases dismantled. The CIA should be abolished. That would be on the first day. Give me a few minutes to think about the second day.
What we have is the continuation of a duopoly in which the differences between the two sides of the duopoly are far less important than their similarities. There is a largely successful establishment effort to control the political process so that the range of options is severely limited. We have the outward semblance of democracy without the reality of it.
For example, studies show that a large majority of Americans, including majorities who identify with each major party, believe our national priorities are screwed up and we shouldn't be spending most of our resources on the military. But the Presidential candidates of both major parties, and probably at least 95% of the Congressional candidates, support the screwed up priorities. Obama and McCain had and have virtually identical positions calling for greater increases in the military budget and an increase in the active duty forces.
And despite rhetoric making it sound as if their positions are very different, when you look closely at the real positions of the candidates, there's very little difference on Iraq either. And both consistently supported requests for funding the war.
AFAIK, in his entire political career, Obama has never once taken a position for anything that could be called meaningful change. And he's been backtracking on previous positions for even marginal change.
The establishment relies for their continued power on the people assuming you have to choose between the duopoly candidates. This guarantees that the establishment wins and the people lose.
We must stop trying to figure a lesser evil, and take a position of not voting for evil. We should be measuring them against our understanding of what this country needs, not against what another wing of the establishment is presenting.
Any vote, no matter who you vote for, is a vote in favor of the status quo. When you vote you are saying you support a system whose deck is stacked in favor of the criminals. The only way we will ever have real change is if everyone stops supporting that system en masse.
Wrong!! "Any vote, no matter who you vote for, is a vote in favor of the status quo". That is only true IF YOU VOTE FOR ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR CORPORATE PARTIES. It is clear to even the Fox News audience that our government is corrupt to the core. Those who are elected to be our representatives, are NOT REPRESENTING US.
If your 'representative' voted for the bankster bailout, for the surge in Afghanistan and has not signed on to HR 676 Medicare for all, Single Payer---that person is not representing the people of the district. The people of the United States by a large majority opposed the bankster bailout, opposed the surge in Afghanistan and the extension into Pakistan and over 70% of us want Medicare for all like every other industrial nation has. If your 'rep' did not vote as you wanted him/her to vote, they voted for the donors who fill their pockets with 'donations' (or, in truth---BRIBES!)
We must KICK THE CORRUPT OUT OF CONGRESS. A vote against any incumbent is not in favor of the status quo.....in fact it is the best way to change the status quo. Our elected officials need to learn that while the 'donors' give them big bucks, and those big bucks do pay for highly successful P.R., it ain't gonna work if we the people say "No way! You vote how we advise --- or it's bye bye baby---you are out of office."
Still fighting in the Mideast, hiring Blackwater, no single-payer, Gitmo, no real campaign reform, big banker bailouts. Looks like we got a third term of Bush.
There is no confusion about OBAMA THE COWARDS mission, he is a stay the course FASCIST, he is doing exactly what he was told to do. If you thought that electing him because he was black or because he promised change and return the the rule of law and repatriate the constitution, your crazy!
Oh, so this is what 'shape shifter' is turning into on a dime now? Now along with his personification of a black w & dick, either one, and his attempt to shift into FDR, o seems to feel he will come across better as the black version of milton 'turdfuck' friedman along with the 'unfettered' market that with move in honduras and new bases in colombia to go even further into South America bringing him around to shape shifting into nixon and kissinger, my oh my is this guy a true man of many faces except one of truth.
Yeah, I was leaning towards o until he caved in to the corporations AND the american izraeli public affairs committee early on in 2008 and since he was being paid by corporate america then he was guaranteed the white house and with very very few objections since it was a black man being put in the presidency so instead of having to use those voter fraud tactics, he was unanimosly put in office.
I heard a well-respected political commentator on the radio recently, asked what he thought of Obama say (paraphrasing:) He has the remarkable ability to make people of all persuasions feel he is talking to them, and wants to give them what they want-- even people with quite different views."
So we still don't quite know much except that the guy is an expert rhetoretician and is slippery.
Well, that paraphrase is correct for any politician, who are the most adroit actors on the planet, but when people begin to recognize that institutionalized and thick, sweet language as the facade of puppet underling speaking for others in a sanitized way, it becomes harder to fool all the people all the time or even most of the people some of the time.
Absolutely terrific thread with so many good postings its not funny.
Especially Puffin and Tramaker with others joining in. Teddy and AD.
Lots of good points and not just an echo chamber.
Thank you all!
We should do everything possible to bring Obama down in flames.
Let's find a replacement for Obama for 2012, now.
I'm all for a replacement, but is it necessary for progressives to stoop to the same quality of rhetoric as the right/far right? That is exactly why progressives lose. We have to raise the bar. Speak the facts. Be honest. Period.
No need to stoop. Bring him down with all due approbrium & panache.
Obama was a known quantity even in 2007 (see http://mostlywater.org/the_myth_barack_obamas_true_progressive_past), which poses the question:
Why did the "progressive media" promote and cover for Obama and smother all negative information about him leading up to his victory in the primaries/caucuses?
If the "progressive media" had done its job before the 2008 primaries then Obama would be a mere footnote and not president.
This question must be answered if we a going to deal effectively with this disaster that is Obama and prevent its repeat.
When you vote Democratic Party you always get Republican Party put back together again. When are liberals going to be smart enough to figure this out so that they can build a true non-corporate controlled political opposition in this country? Forever and never?
Getting money out of political campaigns and politics in general is far more important than forming 3d parties. 3d parties don't have a chance in the current non-system, because they don't have the bucks.
PEOPLE:
JEFF COHEN IS ONE PROGRESSIVE THAT WILL TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA.
YES, CATO, OBAMA IS A SHAPE-SHIFTER AND IS WORSE THAN BUSH.
BUSH WAS WHO HE WAS AND MADE NO EXCUSES.
OBAMA PRETENDED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE TO WIN VOTES.
HE IS NOT A NICE GUY AND NEVER WAS.
OBAMA VOTERS:
NEXT TIME, PLEASE LOOK AT HOW THE CANDIDATE IS VOTING IN CONGRESS.
DENNIS KUCINICH HAS CONSISTENTLY VOTED FOR THE PEOPLE AND IS A VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
HE IS ARTICULATE, WITTY, CARING,PERSISTENT,INTELLIGENT AND EFFECTIVE.
READ HIS BOOK ABOUT HIS LIFE. HE CAME FROM NOTHING AND STILL LIVES IN THE HOUSE HE BOUGHT 30 YEARS AGO IN CLEVELAND.
THIS MAN HAS REAL INTEGRITY AND GUTS.
HE HAS FOUGHT FOR US AND CONTINUES TO FIGHT FOR:
SINGLE-PAYER MEDICARE FOR ALL HEALTHCARE
ENDING NAFTA, WTO
ENDING WELFARE FOR THE RICH
CREATING A PEACE DEPT.
ENDING WAR
CREATING GREEN JOBS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
DENNIS KUCINICH IS EVERYTHING WE WANT AND NEED IN A CANDIDATE.
"I WOULD RATHER VOTE FOR WHAT I WANT AND NOT GET IT THAN VOTE FOR WHAT I DON'T WANT AND GET IT". -- EUGENE DEBS
SUPPORT HIM WITH YOUR VOICE, YOUR MONEY, WHATEVER YOU CAN SO WE CAN KEEP HIM IN THE RUNNING FOR 2012.
and you know it must be true because it is all in caps.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
THANK YOU for this lovely article. I shall print this out and take his points and craft them in ways such that it will be harder for the bots to say "racist".
off-topic
you asked for some info and I missed to check wikipedia. So here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor
He needs the money and MSM support and he won't get those from liberals. Our fight should not be with Obama or any other politician. It should be a fight to get money out of politics. Win that one and we win them all.
No question about it!
At least two characteristics are required for any candidate to offer him/herself up for president. First, they must at least pretend to be an American Christian - notwithstanding their actual morality and/or behavior they must worship at the alter of Christian Americanism; and second, they must be seen as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist of the first order. Nothing less will do. Without these two necessary attributes an individual has no chance to be elected president in our poor foolish, broken, nation. Anyone believing otherwise is not paying sufficient attention.
All institutions have values. To reach the top of any institution, an individual must internalize those values or he/she is weeded out at a lower level. Is it surprising, then, that Mister Obama is only marginally different from Mister Bush? They both sought the leadership of the same institution and have internalized the same values - Americanism and capitalism. And it won't matter who we elect in the future, they will have the same values - whatever they pretend. The only question on the leadership's mind is whether to control us by force or buy us off.
See: http://mostlywater.org/the_myth_barack_obamas_true_progressive_past
Reading the back and forth about what Obama is makes me think he is a shape shifter.
He appears to each of us what each of us want him to be.
This is the HOPE we have been fed since the Man from Hope appeared on the horizon. I say let us all run when any candidate mentions hope. Let us ground ourselves in Reality and measure a man by his "political history" and not by his rhetoric.
Not only is Obama "no FDR." He's not even a Bill Clinton! Clinton at least got family leave and expanded earned income credits for workers. Obama is 100% corporate, all the way.
Not only is Obama "no FDR." He's not even a Bill Clinton! Clinton at least got family leave and expanded earned income credits for workers. Obama is 100% corporate, all the way.
you are EXACTLY correct. that is what Obama IS.
but he will eventually lose "shapes" to shift into and will be trapped by all the "shapes" he shifted into already - and THEN
he will have no room to maneuver.
either he stands up for what is morally and ethically right, even at cost to himself or his presidency OR be UTTERLY destroyed and bring the whole American House down with him .
and history will show him AS the shape shifter that he WAS - A FAILURE
who presided during a time of GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES to SHIFT shapes for the betterment of all and the greater good - and AWAY from the ruling exploiters -
but CHOSE to "shape shift" right up to his own destruction and eternal shame of his name and that of his daughters. AND country.
I like the shape shifting metaphor, it suits the situation perfectly. By late January, the greatest of all "Golden Opportunities to Shift Shapes for the betterment of all..." was walked away from and it was clear there was no hope. The opportunity of a lifetime to put Wall St back in the box with 80% of the country behind him and we got Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. Follow that with no one on the foreign policy team that was truly pro-peace and no one on the economic team that was anti- Wall St. The rest has been anti-climax as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, and to make sure I give proper credit, I'll hasten to add that Martin Luther King Jr who said we "should internationalize" our struggle for justice everywhere in his day, as Dr King recognized as so many today don't that " Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere; sculpture of this great American and needless to say, citizen of the world.
It's for that reason I'm glad to have a sculpture of this great American at home. It was also an honor to put at least the finishing touches on this sculpture of a great American, and needless to say citizen of the world. The neo cons can take this off me over my cold dead body.
AD
AD -- like you , i never Tire of reminding people about Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and all like him that lived, fought and died for the sake of so many of US all over the world.
OBAMA does not even DESERVE to utter the name of Dr King because obama represents the very forces that Dr King DIED from!!!
it really makes me weep , again, just thinking about it. so much GOOD potential in a nation, the USA - and by example and truthful, sincere brotherhood and sisterhood towards other cultures - and respecting them and enjoying the differences and diversities to learn from and share rather than IMPOSE and DESTROY and DOMINATE and ROB --
and all of it just corrupted towards the cultivation of the WORST instincts in people and societies...
THERE IS NO reason that if the societies such as Bali, Tahiti, no matter how small could evolve cultures of beauty and respect for each other and the world around them that "the modern world" can not build upon those NATURAL principles...rather than have the BAD excuse that "it can't be done"
just because of BAD leaderships that gain influence to CULTIVATE what the well-evolved societies would INSTANTLY recognize as EVIL and REJECT!
Jeff Cohen as usual is right on the mark. The current US president isn't on the side of the working and middle class in the USA as Bernie Sanders, Dennis j Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Lee, and we are paying the price for that. Way to many are hypnotized by him. But their delusional state won't bring us the change we can really believe in. This article gives me solid proof that my support for FAIR, a media watch group he founded is well worth it. We're I not in recovery from major surgery and my rear end virtually homebound, I'd be doing more for the progressive causes he and I are both fighting for. When a GI, rank and file member of the US Army were wounded in the Second World War, he would get time to recover, as I'm doing today as we fight against another tyrannical political and economic system overly influenced and controlled by what C Wright Mills referred to as the power elites and to the everlasting sorrow of those who seek to get not just a democratic government, but democratic society for this country.We fought and won that victory over the Rome/Berlin/Tokyo Axis by internationalization of that struggle in the form of the United Nations, which then was the name used for the countries fighting against the Axis regimes' tyrannies and insane power grab to make slaves out of all other than those on the Axis side and make the Axis power elite rich. They would get the prosperity and we would get the co as part and parcel of their greater co prosperity sphere they offered other countries. We said no thanks, and noone should ever regret that. We have to say to these tyrants in our own day who seek to line their pockets at our expense.
Again I say let us be thankful for true leaders such as this. We desperately need them today all around this world.
AD
"could demobilize progressive activists"
Could? Has.
"It's time for activists take a harder look at Obama."
The time for that was in 2006-2008. Too late now.
See: http://mostlywater.org/the_myth_barack_obamas_true_progressive_past
Jeff Cohen as usual is right on the mark. The current US president isn't on the side of the working and middle class in the USA as Bernie Sanders, Dennis j Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Lee, and we are paying the price for that. Way to many are hypnotized by him. But their delusional state won't bring us the change we can really believe in. This article gives me solid proof that my support for FAIR, a media watch group he founded is well worth it. We're I not in recovery from major surgery and my rear end virtually homebound, I'd be doing more for the progressive causes he and I are both fighting for. When a GI, rank and file member of the US Army were wounded in the Second World War, he would get time to recover, as I'm doing today as we fight against another tyrannical political and economic system overly influenced and controlled by what C Wright Mills referred to as the power elites and to the everlasting sorrow of those who seek to get not just a democratic government, but democratic society for this country.We fought and won that victory over the Rome/Berlin/Tokyo Axis by internationalization of that struggle in the form of the United Nations, which then was the name used for the countries fighting against the Axis regimes' tyrannies and insane power grab to make slaves out of all other than those on the Axis side and make the Axis power elite rich. They would get the prosperity and we would get the co as part and parcel of their greater co prosperity sphere they offered other countries. We said no thanks, and noone should ever regret that. We have to say to these tyrants in our own day who seek to line their pockets at our expense.
Again I say let us be thankful for true leaders such as this. We desperately need them today all around this world.
AD
in many ways. OBAMA is WORSe than George Bush.
at least George Bush has the BAD excuse of beiong a scion of a RICH family that has NO conception whatsoever of the suffering of ordinary people to support the system that george Bush survives on.
OBAMA should KNOW BETTER. but he chooses to side WITH the Oppressors rather than those that he KNOWS are the oppressed..and to make it worse - he actually melifluously berates the ordinary people - no different from someone blaming the victim.
in many ways - he is WORSE.
George Bush is just a Cruel , ignorant , selfish idiot
Obama knows what cruelty is, what IGNORANCE IS, what selfishness and greed IS -- and gives plenty of "parables" about these things........
BUT UPHOLDS the very system that spawns it!
for that - he IS WORSE.
Great article.
"When he compromises, it's not Obama's fault - it's the opposition." --- Isn't that one of the cornerstones of the left idea, or whatever is left of it?
"That would be a rerun of the 1994 rightwing triumph brought on by President Clinton's weakness (e.g. healthcare reform) and corporatism" --- Yes, we have Hillary-care-2. The difference being that this time it'll get worse instead of staying the same. Not a surprise, if you know that Obama is just another clown in the Dem-Rep circus. They all work for the same owner.
"If Obama is radical about anything, it's about NOT rocking corporate boats." --- No, it's not that. He is about turbocharging said boats, courtesy of the public.
"The problem today is that Obama doesn't seem to have a populist bone in his body." --- but he does have the corporate media placing a populist skin over his corporate bones.
"I guess he's smart enough NOT to call himself "a corporate guy." --- I guess we should be smart enough to call him what he is and start crafting some response... Continuing the hopey, dopey Santa Obama myth misses the real point, for Obama the corps are the only good kids he knows or cares about.
excerpt from a long article..more can be found in his website:
http://henryckliu.com/page167.html
"THE USA IS REALLY A PROTECTIONIST NATION PRETENDING TO BE FREE-MARKET..and the WORLD'S MAIN CURRENCY MANIPULATOR" - henry ck liu
"THE TROUBLE WITH US AMERICANS IS..IF OUR DOLLAR CAN'T BUY MORE THAN 6 % OF ITS VALUE AT HOME..WE GET UNEASY ...AND GO ABROAD SO IT CAN BUY 100& MORE..AND WHERE THE DOLLAR GOES, OUR FLAG FOLLOWS, WHERE THE FLAG GOES, OUR ARMY FOLLOWS...WE ARE A RACKETEER NATION"........GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER, US MARINES. 1933.
Milton Friedman and the Money Matters Controversy
By
Henry CK Liu
This article appeared in AToL on September 5, 2008
The University of Chicago announced plans last June to establish a high-power research institute in economics to be named after Milton Friedman, a high profile free market monetarist professor at the university from 1946 to 1976, who was widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the overwhelming importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government economic policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. He was also an outspoken public defender of free markets which he inevitably linked with political freedom. But the plan is facing strong vocal oppositon from none other than Friedman's own colleagues in the university.
Friedman was the 1976 recipient of the Nobel/Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economics. The press release of the award cited Friedman’s coining of the term “money matters” or even “only money matters” as an arresting slogan for monetarism. On November 17, 2006, one day after his death at age 94, the Wall Street Journal printed an opinion piece by Friedman entitled: Why Money Matters.
The official press release on the award explained the choice of Friedman as follows: “This strong emphasis on the role of money should be seen in the light of how economists - usually advocates of a narrow interpretation of Keynesian theory - have, for a long time, almost entirely ignored the significance of money and monetary policy when analyzing business cycles and inflation. As far back as the beginning of the fifties, Friedman was a pioneer in the well-founded reaction to the earlier post-Keynesian one-sidedness. And he succeeded - mainly thanks to his independence and brilliance - in initiating a very lively and fruitful scientific debate which has been going on for more than a decade. In fact, the macro-econometric models of today differ greatly from those of a couple of decades ago as far as the monetary factors go - and this is very much thanks to Friedman. The widespread debate on Friedman’s theories also led to a review of monetary policies pursued by central banks - in the first place, in the United States. It is very rare for an economist to wield such influence, directly and indirectly, not only on the direction of scientific research but also on actual policies.”
The press release was factual in some respects and outright inaccurate in others. It is accurate that Friedman strongly emphasized the role of money. But it is inaccurate to describe Friedman as having reversed the “narrow interpretation” of Keynesian theory because “only money matters” is literally a narrowing spotlight among the broad range of factors that Keynesian theory normally considers in formulating economic policy, including monetary factors. It is accurate to say Friedman was an early pioneer in reaction to post-Keynesianism, but it is not accurate to label post-Keynesianism one-sided. In fact “only money matters” sounded definitively one-sided to most listeners. Friedman’s reaction to Keynesianism is hardly well-founded, though it is admittedly reactionary. As the press report noted, Friedman’s emphasis of money is important to the analysis of the business cycle and inflation. But business cycles are not the economy, only one aspect of it. In fact, Friedman’s fundamental flaw is his fixation on the business cycle as expressed by the stock market, rather than looking at the whole economy with a wide range of meta-finance concerns such as agricultural economics, labor economics, population economics, the economics of war, pollution, development, etc. The list is long and interlinked and any economist ignoring any of part of the list runs the risk of being one-sided.
excerpt from a long article..more can be found in his website:
http://henryckliu.com/page167.html
"THE USA IS REALLY A PROTECTIONIST NATION PRETENDING TO BE FREE-MARKET..and the WORLD'S MAIN CURRENCY MANIPULATOR" - henry ck liu
"THE TROUBLE WITH US AMERICANS IS..IF OUR DOLLAR CAN'T BUY MORE THAN 6 % OF ITS VALUE AT HOME..WE GET UNEASY ...AND GO ABROAD SO IT CAN BUY 100& MORE..AND WHERE THE DOLLAR GOES, OUR FLAG FOLLOWS, WHERE THE FLAG GOES, OUR ARMY FOLLOWS...WE ARE A RACKETEER NATION"........GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER, US MARINES. 1933.
Milton Friedman and the Money Matters Controversy
By
Henry CK Liu
This article appeared in AToL on September 5, 2008
The University of Chicago announced plans last June to establish a high-power research institute in economics to be named after Milton Friedman, a high profile free market monetarist professor at the university from 1946 to 1976, who was widely regarded as the intellectual leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the overwhelming importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government economic policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. He was also an outspoken public defender of free markets which he inevitably linked with political freedom. But the plan is facing strong vocal oppositon from none other than Friedman's own colleagues in the university.
Friedman was the 1976 recipient of the Nobel/Sveriges Riksbank Prize in economics. The press release of the award cited Friedman’s coining of the term “money matters” or even “only money matters” as an arresting slogan for monetarism. On November 17, 2006, one day after his death at age 94, the Wall Street Journal printed an opinion piece by Friedman entitled: Why Money Matters.
The official press release on the award explained the choice of Friedman as follows: “This strong emphasis on the role of money should be seen in the light of how economists - usually advocates of a narrow interpretation of Keynesian theory - have, for a long time, almost entirely ignored the significance of money and monetary policy when analyzing business cycles and inflation. As far back as the beginning of the fifties, Friedman was a pioneer in the well-founded reaction to the earlier post-Keynesian one-sidedness. And he succeeded - mainly thanks to his independence and brilliance - in initiating a very lively and fruitful scientific debate which has been going on for more than a decade. In fact, the macro-econometric models of today differ greatly from those of a couple of decades ago as far as the monetary factors go - and this is very much thanks to Friedman. The widespread debate on Friedman’s theories also led to a review of monetary policies pursued by central banks - in the first place, in the United States. It is very rare for an economist to wield such influence, directly and indirectly, not only on the direction of scientific research but also on actual policies.”
The press release was factual in some respects and outright inaccurate in others. It is accurate that Friedman strongly emphasized the role of money. But it is inaccurate to describe Friedman as having reversed the “narrow interpretation” of Keynesian theory because “only money matters” is literally a narrowing spotlight among the broad range of factors that Keynesian theory normally considers in formulating economic policy, including monetary factors. It is accurate to say Friedman was an early pioneer in reaction to post-Keynesianism, but it is not accurate to label post-Keynesianism one-sided. In fact “only money matters” sounded definitively one-sided to most listeners. Friedman’s reaction to Keynesianism is hardly well-founded, though it is admittedly reactionary. As the press report noted, Friedman’s emphasis of money is important to the analysis of the business cycle and inflation. But business cycles are not the economy, only one aspect of it. In fact, Friedman’s fundamental flaw is his fixation on the business cycle as expressed by the stock market, rather than looking at the whole economy with a wide range of meta-finance concerns such as agricultural economics, labor economics, population economics, the economics of war, pollution, development, etc. The list is long and interlinked and any economist ignoring any of part of the list runs the risk of being one-sided.
The market is merely the transactional record of the economy. Students of the market economy tend to confuse business, which is transacted in the market, as the whole economy itself. That is the problem with Business School economists who really should be called “busi-nomists” rather than eco-nomists because by definition and by design they are not concerned with eco, a Greek word “oikos” meaning house. The word describes the complex symbiotic relationships of all living organisms in relation to their environment in the eco-system. Business is ony a subsystem of the socio-economic ecosystem. The goal of busi-nomists is to keep the business cycle from recurring crashes even if it means destroying the economy in the process. To achieve this goal, central banking was invented.
This is not to denigrate business experts. All experts, however narrow, perform useful functions and brilliant experts deserve admiration. It is just that they should refrain from fantasizing that they are generalists dealing with the economy. Business exists to make profit for the businessman and there is nothing wrong with that as long as ethical rules are observed. Unlike business, the economy exists to enhance progress in civilization. The former is artificial, the latter is actual. The key problem of the recent decades of Friedman monetarism has not been that money matters but that it matters too much.
Friedman had also written extensively on public policy, always with primary emphasis on the preservation and extension of individual freedom, going beyond economics. His books, periodical columns, media personal appearances and a 1980 ten-part series on Public Television with the grand title of Freedom to Choose, followed by a second three-part series in 1984 which together commanded more air time than the 10-part series by Kenneth Clark on Civilization, made him an influential national opinion molder beyond economics. In time, Friedman readily transformed himself from the role of a social scientist to that of a globe-trotting, faith-peddling evangelist of what a disillusioned Japanese central banker later called snake oil economics.
In 1988, Friedman was awarded the National Medal of Science by the National Science Foundation and the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Reagan. Thus encouraged, Friedman went on to publish in 2002 Capitalism and Freedom, a passionate echo of official calls for extending individual economic freedom and limiting government action, except in foreign affairs. Free trade, officially endorsed by pseudo-science, has since become the central focus of US “transformational” foreign policy to spread freedom around the world. It is Adam Smith turned up-side-down.
President George W Bush defended the free trade agenda in moralistic terms. “Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative,” he declared in a May 7, 2001 speech. “Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we’re providing new hope for the world’s poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom.” While such claims remain highly controversial when tested by actual data, it explains why Milton Friedman, a free trade economist, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Reagan.
Phyllis Schlafly, syndicated conservative columnist, responded three weeks later in an article: Free Trade is an Economic Issue, Not a Moral One. In it, she notes while conservatives should be happy to finally have a president who adds a moral dimension to his actions, “the Bible does not instruct us on free trade and it’s not one of the Ten Commandments. Jesus did not tell us to follow Him along the road to free trade. … Nor is there anything in the U.S. Constitution that requires us to support free trade and to abhor protectionism. In fact, protectionism was the economic system believed in and practiced by the framers of our Constitution. Protective tariffs were the principal source of revenue for our federal government from its beginning in 1789 until the passage of the 16th Amendment, which created the federal income tax, in 1913. Were all those public officials during those hundred-plus years remiss in not adhering to a “moral obligation” of free trade?” Hardly, argues Schlafly whose views were noteworthy because US politics was at that time enmeshed in a struggle between strict-constructionist paleo-conservatives and moral-imperialist neo-conservatives. Despite the ascendance of neo-imperialism in US foreign policy, protectionism remains strong in US political culture, particularly among conservatives and in the labor movement. And now in 2008, a new populism is rising against the US version of free trade.
Redefining humanist morality, the US asserts that world trade is a moral imperative and as such free trade promotes democracy, political freedom and respect for human rights in trade participating nations. Unfortunately, income and wealth equality are not among the benefits promoted by free trade. Even if the validity of this twisted ideological assertion is not questioned, it clearly contradicts US practice of trade embargo against countries the US deems undemocratic, lacking in political freedom and deficient in respect for human rights. If trade promotes such desirable conditions, such practice of linking trade to freedom is tantamount to denying medicine to the sick.
Love is blind and infatuation disguises faults as virtues. As Rudyard Kipling fell in love with the pageantry of colonialism and saw racial exploitation as the “White Man’s Burden”, Nobel economist Friedman fell in love with colonial Hong Kong, seduced by the wine-and-dine hospitality of its colonial masters and elite compradors before China reclaimed sovereignty of it in 1997. Friedman mistook Hong Kong’s colonial economic system as a free market, despite Hong Kong’s long history of highly orchestrated colonial command economic structure. The Hong Kong economy that Friedman loved prospered from Cold War geopolitical tension, not free market principle. The Asian Financial Crisis that broke out in Thailand on July 2, 1997, one day after China took back Hong Kong, put monetarist market fundamentalism in the public opinion dog house in Asia.
====
for the rest of the article , go to the Henry CK Liu website or Asiatimesonline
The Friedman stuff was good. But, you left out the Orlando Letelier & Naomi Klein take on Friedman and the UofC School of Economics. One of the best ways to make a "profit" is armed robbery. Letelier and many thousands of others died during the application of these principles, and millions lost much or all of their life savings.
The Chicago School of Economics has such a bad reputation among many that it damages the reputation of the entire university, which was once considered one of the best in the world.
On the terms of the health care debate: I believe liberal talking points should include the fact that reform (like the New Deal itself was) is all about FREEING us from our disastrous dependence on the market.
Reform is also all about leveling the playing field, because (as we all know) all too often, due to undue special interest influence, the 'free market' is anything but free.
The heart of the problem of high CEO salaries is not so much how much CEOs are paid. No, it is the fact that non-CEOs are paid so relatively little.
And may I mention that Jimmy Carter only spoke out about the racism of Obama's critics AFTER a Maureen Dowd column on the subject appeared in The New York Times?
correct about the low wages.
that is central to Capitalism. the division between the upper classes and ordinary people.
as some have said:
it was not so much capitalism that Karl marx wrote against...but that capitalism's way of enabling the "moneyed class" to gather wealth "on the backs of ordinary people" .
Exploitation, in other words. Class War.
Marx failed miserably, even more, the complete confusion and bewilderment of the left is a more or less a direct result of Marx' duplicity. When the left cleans itself from Marxian demagogy, they may get a second chance. Otherwise they just serve the purpose of their so called "class enemies".
last thing the world heard:
GOLDMAN SACHS , LEHMAN BROTHERS, AIG and company were SPECTACULAR FAILURES -- the SYMBOLS of "american captialism"}
and so have BEEN FORD< CHRYSLER and GM ALL - of them - like DINOSAURS - FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC, all of them EXINCT ...
and NOW the FDIC - the "guarantor" of depositors' money in banks is only hours away from COMPLETE BANKRUPTCY and FAILURE
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT has to go BEGGING CHINA to buy US treasuries for the UNDEPENDABLE US DOLLAR economy
the USA UNABLE to PAY its DAILY DEBT interest of 100 BILLION DOLLARS per day! and that's JUST interests.
and SOON the GOVERNMENT ANKTRUPTCY and FEDERAL BANK BUBBLE to SPECTACULARLY BURST like those "bombs in the air" americans love so much on July 4h celebrating their "freedom" and "capitalism"
ALL to the tune of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of BORROWED MONEY from FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
many of them SOCIALIST in one way or another....
to PROP UP its "capitalism" in MISPLACED DELUSIONAL "national pride"
and its only REMAINING "real" "product"
IS WAR , KILLING MUNIITIONS and "expertise" and its WAR LOVING WAR MAKING CLASS WAR GLORIFYING Corporatism.
FAILURE?
it's the USA and ITS model that is the failure. if it werent' able to MANIPULATE ITSELF all these generations to its power, UNEARNED and UNJUSTIFIED --
it's ZOMBIE SYSTEM of Capitalism would have LONG ago been consigned to HISTORY as the FAILURE and RACKET that it really is:
:"WE ARE A RACKETEER NATION.....I was its Chief Racketeer for our Supernationalistic Capitalism....for our War, Corporate, Big Business, Big Finance, Big MONEY RACKETEERS upon the world...I was the Chief Muscle Man for our Money Racket on Three Continents" --- GENERAL SMEDLEY BUTLER< US MARINES. 1933.
of course it had to be a RACKET --- it's the ONLY way the USA would have been "USA"
actually - Marx succeeded SPECTACULARLY - he predicted all these "money capitalism" implosions and explosions. he predicted the "structural crises" as it is now known of capitalism that always tries to save itself by using what is TODAY "state capitalism" ...he also delineated that the CAUSE of it is the banking, monetarism industries' TAKING OVER the economy from the actual creators of wealth which is the people - and it is seen through the way the corporatism - aided by state Capitalism - through the bail-outs, welfare corporate system, the use of public money to SUPPLEMENT PRIVATE industries - and he predicted that MILITARISM and IMPERIAL WARS are another tool of state capitalism run rampant as it looks for "markets" abroad for its "surplus" which its OWN people CNA NO LONGER AFFORD because of what marx ALSO predicted was a case of
Suppressed labor Values and wages taht can NOT SUSTAIN the economy of consumption - meaning:
labor which can not afford what IT produces.
and the RESULT?
a "credit, debt" BUBBLE ECONOMY - exactly as you are seeing.
as for "class war" --
WARREN BUFFET:
"THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN CLASS WAR WAGED BY THE RICH AGAINST everyone else..we the rich ought to be PAY A LOT MORE IN TAXES".
and for the record:
HONGKONG - the "bastion of capitalism" in Asia just HAPPENS to be a HUGELY STATE SUBSIDIZED "capitalism" complete with its STATE SUBSIDIZED national health care where for a mere 13 dollars out of pocket - anyone can go to any hospital or clinic for FIRST CLASS TREATMENT...freeing its people to do the business of making a living!
SWEDEN, FINLAND and NORWAY are FAR to the :"left" of the USA - and are at worst "mixed economies" with HIGH REGULATIONS on private "enterprise" and YET are SPECTACULARLY STABLE and PROSPEROUS - even NORWAY - 2 weeks ago VOTED INTO POWER "labor" party - wishing to INCREASE its Social Welfare Statehood EVEN MORE than it already is - as one of the most SOCIALIST societies on earth!!!
how DID SWEDEN SAVE itself in the 1980's from COLLAPSE after trying to follow the US MODEL? BY REGULATING and NATIONALIZING BANKS and WIPING OFF the face of the planet the Gamblers calling themselves "investors" ! PERIOD!
WHAT does the RICHEST man in FINLAND say about economics?
"I am already rich beyond my dreams, my wife and i do not need anymore...but we have become successful as entrepreneurs ONLY BECAUSE OUR SOCIAL WELFARE SYSTEM gave us conditions to be as creative and bold as we wanted to be withtou fear of failure and falling between the cracks. i Consider it a duty and an HONOR to pay my taxes to our nation that has given us this opportunity" FINLAND just happens to have the world's biggest collection of technological and scientific patents due to its armies of scientists, engineers, and has some of the world's biggest "EXPORT" markets of Artists, musicians, poets, dramatists
ALL BECAUSE OF SOCIALISM
CHINA is UNSTOPPABLE in realizing its TRUE potential of in , under ten years - supplanting the USA as the world's most powerful economy....
the ONE THAT IS A SPECTACULAR FAILURE is the USA and its MODEL OF Exploitation, ROBBERY of other nation's resources and CHEAPENING of labor and resources everywhere in order to make a PRETENSE of having "built" its POWER and wealth through PURE "american hard work and capitalism"
even IF it is standing on top of ENSLAVEMENT, GENOCIDE, TRADE and MONETARY MANIPULATION to ARTIFICIALLY PROP UP THE DOLLAR and ARTIFICIALLY make US "economy" more VALUABLE than it REALLY IS and its WARS to IMPOSE that FAILED , DISASTER SYSTEM!
Excellent post! I agree wholeheartedly.
Great post, thank you!
That "free" market Obama loves so much has been costing us trillions, in addition to the invaluable environmental losses.
To the poster who asked about the difference between Obama and Bush - and mentioned environmental policy specifically:
While recognizing that even environmental groups disagree amongst themselves on some of the legislation (ex. "The American Clean Energy and Security Act" - Waxman-Markey Bill-which passed in the House. Greenpeace USA and Friends of the Earth oppose the newly-passed House legislation. The Sierra Club and The Natural Resources Defense Council support it). I can name you several Obama policies that are better for the environment than the Bush Administration:
1)signed the largest conservation measure in 15 years, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which designates two million acres of pristine federal lands as wilderness area, prevents oil and gas development on certain other vulnerable lands, and expands the nation's Wild and Scenic Rivers program to protect a thousand miles of rivers.
2)overturning Bush’s changes to the ESA
3)raising the fuel efficiency standard
4)allowing states to set higher tailpipe emission standards than the federal government
5)canceled a Bush era plan that would have nearly quadrupled current logging on public lands in western Oregon.
6)billions in the stimulus for a green economy
7)revoking a decree that would have allowed drilling near national parks (another leftover from Bush)
8)giving the EPA the authority to limit carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act
9)creating an Ocean Policy Task Force led by the Council on Environmental Quality (Bush ignored 5 years of Pew Commission warnings)
Moving on, you tell the beneficiaries of
1)Obama signing the Ledbetter act
2)cancelling the Mexico policy which refused to provide funding to any overseas group who even mentioned abortion (on this issue alone, please see http://www.lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html to see what Obama is actually doing. Yes, it's a conservative website. It would do some of you some good to read it)
3)government approved stem cell research
4)the health care bill that will pass and ban insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions
5)the children now covered by the passing of CHIP
that it makes no difference who is in the White House. Make persuasive arguments that change minds instead of nonsense like there's no difference between Bush and Obama.
Pardon me Tram, but a bunch of the environmental regulations you cite are still being discussed. They are not yet in effect. Others have been marketed as poaitive but if you dig into them they're an abomination.
Sort of like Bush's "Clean Air Act."
Same shit, different day.
One thing is for sure. If that ranching prostitute Salazar is involved there isn't going to be greater protections.
Finally, FYI, the Sierra Club has been bought by the logging industry. Check out the latest forest preservation legislation proposed for Montana and how the Sierra Club scammed their supporters. It's a terrible bill that actually destroys millions of acres of pristine forests.
Grow up and get past the headlines.
Okay, freepressmyass, you win. Obama is just like Bush on the environment. Can't tell the difference. You're very persuasive. I don't know what I was thinking.
In your world, if you don't get everything you want every time, it means you didn't get ANYthing. I think it's you who needs to grow up. It's a childish attitude and you don't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you, which is the #1 problem on the extreme left.
No thought goes into why more people don't agree with you, other than "they must be stupid or not paying attention."
Here's my favorite example of this: I was involved with a progressive group here in Toronto who was thinking of approaching Robert Kennedy Jr. about attending an event. One person in our group piped up, "But he's meeting with Schwarzenegger - I don't think he's really on our side." I thought, don't we WANT him to meet with Arnold and perhaps persuade him on some issues? How in the world can we change people's minds if we don't engage them in rational debate and try and persuade?
There is little attempt from any of the posters here to even meet people halfway, if they don't agree with what you're saying. To say, "you know what, Obama has done a few good things I'll agree but I'm disappointed in x, y and z". The anger and sometimes complete nonsense spewed forth here is not persuasive in the least to those who don't already agree, and it's just as stubborn about the actual facts as those we see on the right. But at least with the extreme left, I know you all mean well.
THE POLLS TELL THE REAL STORY - (so is Obama a SCAM? Is he BLOWING IT DELIBERATELY?)
Americans seem to be saying they want a leader(s) who will articulate a case for real change, which Obama is certainly not doing. Instead, Obama allows the minority to monopolize the message and then he acts as if they're some kind of threatening majority. THEY AREN'T! He's another Democratic Party scammer. example:
Reputable polls (see end of comment for urls)
70% of Americans believe global warming is a "threat." 40% say it's a "serious threat." (2)
80% favor regulating greenhouse gas, even if other countries don't follow suit and even if it raises their bills somewhat. (2)
9-11 - the majority (Zogby poll) thinks we need a new and better investigation. The City of New York Concedes 9/11 Coalition Has 30,000 valid signatures to put referendum for 9/11 investigation on November ballot, yet Van Jones gets "resigned" for having a majority opinion. (4)
Polls detect a substantial support for a greater government role in health care: 87% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans! 70% overall. The majority says they favor it even though it will raise taxes.
59% favor a national health care single payer system. (1)
When asked which party was more likely to improve health care: only 18 percent said Republicans. 57% said Democrats. the others say neither, or don't know.
1) http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
2) http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
4) http://noliesradio.org/archives/5498
I'm not well informed on Obama's environmental policies other than hearing that he's decided to remain subservient to Big Coal with regard to mountaintop removal.
What I can say, however, is that both Obama and Bush authorized a giveaway of close to a trillion dollars to the financial industry, and both have decided to do squat about the underlying conditions that caused the crisis in the first place. Obama's has backed off the stipulation that banks must sell "vanilla" financial products and even had the temerity to argue that there should be no change to the current structure of perverse incentives for CEO's (i.e. engage in risky investments for short-term profits with no disincentive when said investments tank shortly thereafter). Further, common sense would dictate that if a company is "too big to fail" as were AIG and others, and the government needs to step in to bail them out, those companies should be broken up into separate entities to prevent them from blackmailing us once again. The Sherman Antitrust Act was written for such purposes, and although the government is stepping in, it is to the end of ensuring that a free market exists.
We paid them a trillion dollars or close to that out of OUR OWN POCKETS to save the economy, and absent substantive reforms, it will happen again. We got nothing for our money. It'll come out of education, healthcare, social security, and any other government services for middle class and poor people. I'm 32; my grandchildren will still be paying for this bailout in all liklihood.
Conservatives, centrists, and even some liberals constantly extol the virtues of the free market, and I believe that ordinary citizens benefit from the free market in some sectors. But when a handful of companies control an industry, that is not a free market; it is monopolistic capitalism. However, politicians have created an orthodoxy based on the disingenuous notion that we have a free market. My argument sounds 'extreme' and uncompromising in comparison to this idiocy (or greed), but it is common sense in my estimation. Appearing uncompromising is unseemly, but necessary in instances such as these. History has vindicated 'extremists' on numerous occasions.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."--(?).
Why would a "progressive" Canadian group want Robert Kennedy Jr. to tell them anything? Wasn't it not so long ago that Robert Kennedy Jr. would be a Tory by Canadian standards?
Tram
Come on, now. I think you know exactly what I'm saying.
The country is in the crapper. We're way past nuance and baby steps.
We're getting a marketing job on matters of life and death, driven into poverty or having a life. All of this suffering for corporate profits.
I saw his true colors with his FISA/Telecom Immunity and TARP votes. What else did anyone need to know after that? He had two perfect opportunities to grab what was right, take charge, and run with it. Instead, he towed the line for Bush and Wall St.
Obama has broken all of his campaign promises, except for more war in Afghanistan.
You mentioned Obama ending the Iraq war. Some may feel pulling US troops out of Iraq to go to Afghanistan, and replacing them with trigger happy private contractors is ending the war. I don't.
I'm not trying to sell my opinions. I don't give a rat's ass who agress with me or not. I just call it like I see it.
You, on the other hand, are certainly free to keeping voting DENIAL.
If meeting people halfway was what got us to this point, and I am not suggesting it is, then we should abandon this as a demonstrably failed strategy.
I agree Obama has done a few good things, but only when viewed in a vacuum. The overall goal--shifting trillions to the uber-wealthy--continues unabated and accelerated. I think many of us are saying that half-measures are too late, too little--the proverbial strip of gauze placed over the crimson/frothy, sucking chest wound.
The oligarchy has us fighting over crumbs whilst they carry off the cake. Your insistence that we have to gush all over these crumbs just makes them soggy and unappealing.
Hey man, if you keep cutting the pie in half, the half that's left keeps getting smaller.
I don't have to compare him to Bush:
1. Expanded war in Afghanistan.
2. A health care proposal that has government mandated purchase of private insurance. Even Junior couldn't have dreamed up this one. It's a corporate fascist orgy.
3. His comments at the UN make it apparent that we aren't serious about reducing CO2 emissions in serious way. GDP is more important.
So far, he has hit the trifecta on corporate fascist friendly. It is show time on health care and if he doesn't deliver, I think you can stick a fork in the Democratic party.
On abortion funding overseas--
Hooray, but who cares? BHO has refused to reinstate habeus corpus...none of your rights matter much when you can be arrested and tortured to death. This is what kills me--the W policy was abominable, but changing it, whilst simultaneously maintaining the power to incarcerate at will and forever, means NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Stem cell research--it's good, maybe, eventually, for millions of sufferers, but that's incidental. The ban was lifted because non-U.S. companies were getting ahead, and one of the big planks in the oligarchy deck--the pharmaceutical companies, were losing money big time--
And conservation measures are good, sure, but I still live here, and the environmental degradation has continued unabated for thirty years overall. Corporations poison us for free, whereas the lowliest individual who put rocket fuel in your babies' milk would go straight to prison or the chair--
But thanks for pointing out some microscopic, relatively insignificant window-dressing "accomplishments."
So now the argument has changed from no difference between Bush and Obama to no BIG differences, and now the criticism seems to be - in the case of stem cell - that Obama did it for "the wrong reasons". Even if what you say is true on stem cell - and I don't think it is (Obama was always consistent on this issue, long before he was President)- are you sure you're entering into this discussion honestly or just to bash Obama some more? Why not just acknowledge that the stem cell decision was good and a break from Bush. You can still take up a whole host of other issues where Obama is not being progressive enough.
I assure you that the Mexico policy makes a big difference for women around the world as will stem cell research to many Americans.
If one was to argue that the Obama Administration is overly cautious, I would agree but I think the habeus corpus issue is much more complicated than you acknowledge. I look at the intention and I think Obama is sincere about his desire to close Guantanamo but there are complicated legal issues involved that I feel his administration is working to resolve. Give it some time.
So what's your point? Obama's JFK, RFK or FDR? Or maybe to you he's MLK or Malcolm X?
No matter how you try to defend him, he ain't the hero that he made himself out to be, not by a long shot. And that's because he put himself in the position of serving the super-elite wealthy, not you and me. To do that means compromising away democracy, the environment, health, and civil liberties. And that's exactly what he's undeniably doing.
Obama should not be "standing" in the same room as Martin Luther King, Jr.
Obama is not even FIT to UTTER the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Obama is just an uncle tom...a glorified House Slave to his Master: "free market capitalism"....the Spawn of his own White Masters.
Obama is the OPPOSITE of everything Dr Martin Luther King, Jr fought and died for.
If Dr King were alive today and presumably , seeing the horror of the US imperialist capitalist behavior - and the rise of Disaster Capitalism of which Obama IS an accolyte from the Chicago School of Economics cabal surrounding milton friedman and his corporatists of which obama is one - and Dr King was fighting and speaking out against such things: and said the SAME thing he said :
"I must with shame say that the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is MY own country and government".....
OBAMA would treat him JUST LIKE OBAMA TREATED dr King's colleague and fellow civil rights fighter :
Dr Jeremy Wright.
OBAMA WOULD BE THEIR JUDAS delivering them to the masters to be "executed".
I think he's a moderate actually. Never said he was a hero. But I think his heart is progressive - given his background and the early career choices he has made- but he's pragmatic which unfortunately points to the problem with the U.S. system, not to any major character flaw in Obama, in my opinion.
Don't confuse Obama's pre-political career with his political one. The typical politician's career, if long enough, generally has 4 phases. Idealism is the first, unconstrained by political alliances, with appeal to the public. Once in office, there is usually a transition to pragmatism, a willingness to give up on some ideals to achieve others. This enables the third stage, consolidation of power, building up the alliances and political (and campaign) capital to move up. The final stage is corruption, the use of public office to benefit one's supporters, family, and self. Many go into the system with the intent of transition from stage 3 back to stage 1. But, the process usually takes decades, and almost all are hooked on the system as it is.
While it is true that Obama's subservience to the corporate establishment is a product of the system, as President he has the bully pulpit and the ability to recruit the public directly. It is his choice to do as he does, and it is a character flaw, albeit one that was molded into him by the system. The hope is that he moved up too fast to be entirely engulfed by it, but he was anyway.
You gotta be wearing a heavy set of blinder to be believing that. Would a progressive heart send bomb-dropping drones over another country, killing scores of innocents in the process? Would a progressive heart immediately upon coming into office place in his admin all the people who had been responsible for the economic mess in the first place, all of whom are members of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Group, or Council on Foreign Relations? Would a progressive heart argue for letting Bush and Cheney slide by on their crimes? Suppress evidence? We could go on and on here. If Obama were Republican, you wouldn't be defending him. Bottom line.
Wake up -- Wake up!
No, I'm saying that stem-cell research incidentally helps people. It first helps corporations.
Habeus corpus is not a complicated issue. It's well settled law for centuries, and is the foundation upon which our constitution is based. Without it, NONE OF THE OTHER INALIENABLE RIGHTS MATTER. I have passed the bar in three states and practiced for fifteen years (before getting laid off five years ago). I know of what I speak. Without the habeus writ, the U.S. is dead as a democracy, a republic, or any other decent system--
And seriously, an expat in Canada loses a bit of cred in the argument...you got your healthcare. Those of you without, especially, say, an early melanoma patient...be patient.
I've wasted too much time "debating" you. I'm done. Enjoy life, but IMHO, so long as you're in Canada, you ought to stfu.
Peace.
Well, yes, Puffin, AIDS research helps corporations too. Should we stop doing anything that will "help corporations"?
I assumed when you said Habeus corpus, you were referring to Guantanamo. Can you tell me what you are referring to, if not that issue?
Ah - when in doubt, act like a right-winger. I've been told by many on the right to butt out or stfu. I rest my case that there is no more civility on the extreme left than there is on the right.
And for the record, I'm an American citizen whose parents both died of heart disease, while living in the U.S. I am quite familiar with the American health care system and I think I can bring an interesting perspective because I'm also familiar with the Canadian one, for obvious reasons. But such an inclusive bunch you all are.
The Military Commissions Act, under which you can be declared a meany (aka "enemy combatant" and imprisoned or renditioned, tortured to death. Nothing to do with Gitmo. I'm talkin' anyone, citizen or no, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
That is the law continued by Obama. He insisted. That's the goal, total dominion, economic and otherwise, and it will be accomplished while we fight over something that isn't even what we want--universal single-payer--
When the electrified probe is sliding up your ass, I'm sure you'll be happy that Obama has granted funding for abortion education overseas, and a "public option"
Or, less bombastically, when you're evicted, unemployed, hungry...
I'm sorry about your parents, but your history belies your the obvious--you are in Canada where you have healthcare guaranteed. Telling others to be patient is simply rude at best. Your lack of empathy (be patient, ye uninsured) is what is aggravating.
And I told you to stfu in order to bring that issue up-front. Comparing my rhetoric to the inflamed bug-fuckery of a neocon is simply a reaction to the word "fuck"--
If I've hurt your feelings, go see a shrink. It's probably covered.
See? I just made the same point, w/o using "fuck."
Well said.
Here are the three general options with health care in 2009:
1)No bill. Status quo.
2)A bill is passed with a public option.
3)A bill is passed and though it forbids insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and it puts a cap on what they can charge, it does not contain a public option.
I would say we are likely to get #3 with still a faint hope at #2. It sounds like you are saying you would prefer #1 which I think is ludicrous.
If you think #2 was/is possible, tell me where the votes are for the public option in the Senate. I mean, the actual Senators. That's how we can start to address this issue calmly and rationally.
Stating the obvious politically is hardly being rude.
The comparison to the right was not the use of the word fuck but rather the attitude that "you're an asshole because you don't agree with me". I get the anger. I'm simply saying you're not going to persuade anyone NEW with it.
That's right, no bill is better. You believe that the tax credit will prevent those without means from being fined.
But where is that line? And if the IRS decides you owe, like any other tax, you'll have to prove you don't owe it...
If you're without means to buy insurance, you are without means to hire a tax lawyer to keep you out of jail.
Single payer or nothing. And oh, btw, you knew that Canada's system was passed all at once, right, and with much of the doomsaying the right foists on us now. I know you're not ostensibly the right, but your acceptance of "incremental change" hands them victory.
Bad laws, once passed, tend to hang around unless a court invalidates them. This will not be an increment if that word had any meaning. It may be a small step forward, but that step is directly into fast-setting concrete. Once in place, further "reform" will not happen for generations.
Again, you've got healthcare, and your insistence on patience has no weight when you're arguing about the uninsured, even absent the above points.
A McCain presidency would have been better for health care. No question about it. On all other issues, probably the same as Obfraud. Certainly not worse. Better in the sense that criminalizing the populace for not having health care probably wouldn't have happened.
McCain as president would have been so unpopular coming off the heels of Bush that they probably wouldn't have tried the kind of bait-and-switch that Obama is pulling on us. McCain talked up tax credits for insurance premiums, or some garbage like that, during his campaign.
That watered down nothing of a promise looks good compared to what Obama is "offering" us.
Finally. An honest, reality based journalist.
Hats off to Jeff Cohen who understands two important myths (lies) we're constantly told.
MYTH 1
We have a free market system.
When Bush/Obama and Congress make deals with Big Pharma that forces Americans to pay higher drug prices than anyone else in the world, that's not a free market. It's big government collusion.
or
When taxpayers are tossed into a ditch by Bush/Obama/Congress/Paulson/ Geitner and Bernanke, with trillions of unaccounted cash to bail out the Wall St. criminals who trashed our lives it's massive theft, period.
There's no free market capitalism anywhere in that action.
MYTH 2
Obama is a progressive.
All politicians lie. They might lie to cover their ass or it's second nature like patholgical liars.
Obama's words are meaningless. His actions absolutely refute any claims of him being Progressive. The moment he picked his cabinet should have put that shit to rest. Instead we heard how Lincolnesque he was with his team of rivals.
Gag me with a spoon.
Read: http://mostlywater.org/the_myth_barack_obamas_true_progressive_past
fpma - Your myth discussion is correct. I have one quibble.
Actually, Obama was pretty honest in much of his campaign. He certainly never ran as a progressive; his position was consistently not as right-wing as Hilary's in primaries, and Hilary ran as not as right-wing as McCain. It is the MSM that gave the impression Obama was progressive, although Obama did nothing to correct them.
The sad thing is that so many progressives fell in love with the words "change" and "hope", and neglected the specifics. Many voted for him because they fell for two other important myths (lies).
MYTH 3
Your individual vote counts. Corollary: A vote for a losing candidate is wasted.
I know the classic examples, but none come from popular elections. They come from elite assemblies, like the Senate or the electoral college. I am sure there are examples in tiny towns, and especially during town meetings, but not in anything close to a major popular election. A vote for a winning candidate is wasted if the candidate takes it as a mandate to do what the voter doesn't want. Third party candidates never won for President, but progressives got a lot of legislation passed to their liking based on the power of "wasted" votes.
MYTH 4
Killing a bunch of people makes their survivors obey you.
It certainly makes them more likely to want to kill you. You can "win" by committing genocide, but not much short of it. We can make a case that, if 911 was an al Queda conspiracy (whether or not Bush or others were in on it), it did work to help defeat the US. It did not stop the US from killing, but 100M or more US citizens willingly endorsed the plan to bankrupt the USA.
Good point, and they abound in this thread. I hope it's obvious how much I agree w/you based on my other posts here (none of which is particularly good). I don't think I've ever posted so many times on one article.
Peace.
In a public school here in CT I refused to allow my children to watch the compulsory telecast of Obama. My two children were the only two in the school of 350 not to sit before the television and watch him give them advice. In fact, they were sent to the principal's office where they were given extra homework and told that it was not going to be fun sitting it out. Most people thought they had done something bad as they sat in the office. They're in 3rd and 5th grade, and they are two of the finest, most considerate peace loving children you will ever meet. But when some so-called progressive Democrats asked me why I had given my children the option to step aside, I cited a number of drone attacks, giving specifics, including the funeral attack that killed 83, wounded 154, and how most of the wounded likely died because of the poverty and lack of medical facilities in that area. I said, that was a war crime and I don't think I want my child lectured by somebody who would authorize this. Obama and Gates are likely to authorize kills of over 50 civilians. Eyes glazed over. According to them I was insane. Didn't I realize that if Barack Obama is doing it, it must be okay? My response: racism allowed Hitler to kill with impunity. That exact same racism allows Obama to kill with impunity. Now watch Mr. Obama become a hero for standing up against McChrystal and multiplying these drone attacks against the invisible poor.
Wow. Kudos to you on your decision, and for explaining clearly to others WHY you made your decision.
Obama is a monster. Nobody's kids need to be subjected to his utter hypocrisy and lack of humanity. He's no role model for anybody who values integrity, compassion, equality, and peace.
Fenner: Thank you for sharing your argument on this issue. I should have thought of the angle you presented, but I didn't.
One of my serious concerns, of course, is education, and the expansion of the number of high school military academies in the U.S. Originally, a friend of mine in Chicago sent me a couple of articles, and I was, quite frankly, stunned! Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, prior to the Obama appointment, acted as CEO of the Chicago school system. Under the banner of reform, the powers that be wanted to turn Senn High School into a Naval Academy. More than 300 parents, community supporters and teachers protested the decision, and they did not prevail. Senn High School was converted into a high school Naval Academy.
When CEO Duncan was asked about his Quaker roots, and wasn't setting up military academies in conflict with his basic beliefs, CEO Duncan replied, "I come from a Quaker family, and I've always been against war. But I'm going to put the Naval Academy in there, because it will give people in the community more choices."
According to the Chicago Public Schools website, Chicago has 6 public military academies --and I believe Chicago has more of these academies than any other city: 3 Army; 1 Navy; 1 Marines; and 1 Air Force. All six are listed, by name, on the website.
Isn't this a way of indoctrinating young people at even younger ages?
Kay, Thank you for this information. A google search confirms this. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/fast-times-recruitment-high
I will use this info in a letter to the local newspaper. The NY Times stopped publishing my letters. They loved me when Clinton and Bush was President, published 3 letters in six weeks one time, under pseudonyms. Now, not a chance.
Fenner: I'm glad that the information is useful to you.
I read that Boston has at least one high school military academy -- but I haven't had time to follow up with actual research. From what I understand, it is the intent of this administration to set up more high school military academies across the U.S. I also read that they may implement them at the middle school level, but I can't confirm that at this time.
Like you, I keep plugging away at these issues -- which on the surface seem unrelated, but beneath that surface they are all very interconnected to the MIC, and the corporate structure of this country.
Okay, I'm convinced. You've won me over. I hadn't realized until now that the war in Afghanistan was akin to Nazi policy. What are you, some leftist version of Glenn Beck?
Tramaker
The boy playing the video game shot off a Hellfire missile in one of the poorest villages of the world. He killed one on June 22, 2009, I believe. Family and medics came to remove their dead. Two hours later, the boy playing the video game in Nevada, shot off another Hellfire missile, killing thirteen and wounding many more. One June 23th President Obama likely gave authorization to shoot off more Hellfire missiles at the funeral of those who were killed by the first two U.S. strikes. Kill: 83, wounded 154. Mostly women and children. Of the wounded, assume most later died in extraordinary pain. Why? Because of their poverty, there are few, if any medical facilities. Defend that, my friend. Oh, and by the way, all of this killing based on the shakiest of intelligence, perhaps no intelligence at all. And one other thing, cite an article for me that shows an single instance, yes, a single instance where the Taliban has attacked a U.S. citizen off the soil of their own country.
So Fenner, you wouldn't have wanted to fight Hitler in WW2 either - the Nazis didn't kill anyone on U.S. soil either.
I'm not sure how to address this because I'm not sure of your position beyond the fact that horrible things happen in war and that there are far too many innocent lives killed by the American military. Does anyone debate that?
But from there...Are you saying there shouldn't have been any military response to 9-11? Are you saying that Obama, even if he wanted to, could just remove the troops from Afghanistan tomorrow, without endangering the lives of American soldiers and Afghanis? Are you saying that letting the Taliban take over the region wouldn't pose any kind of threat to the world and the Afghan population? Are you suggesting that the majority of Afghans want the U.S. & NATO soldiers to leave?
I'm not sure where you are on any of this.
Tramaker,
Appreciate your responses. First, a little lesson about Al Queda that you may not know or understand. Al Queda could give a damn about returning to Afghanistan. They are an INTERNET BASED TERRORIST GROUP. Repeat that to yourself over and over when you're listening to Obama or Hilary's lies about the danger of Al Queda returning to Afghanistan. Now, try to imagine a moment, if you are part of a terrorist group whose goals are to 1) recruit people 2) plan attacks without leaving a trace behind 3) get America off the Eurasian penisula and free the Palistinian's. Now tell me, why exactly would you want to go into a country with the starvation rate at 30%, lack of medical facilities, lack of clean water and NO INTERNET? Are you heading back there to see if you can find a pair of Osama's old underwear and sniff them? Are you that stupid? Do you understand why the hijackers were Saudi's????? Are you aware that the Saudi's do have an electrical grid??? Did the hijackers go to Afghanistan to train to fly 747's? Do you honestly think the Taliban gives a flying f about Al Queda, do you imagine that they're sitting there trying to plant their crops, going "damn, wish I could just blow myself up in America?" My friend, you are dealing with idiots pumping out horse shit to the masses. 911 should have been a police action, not a military one. In fact, with the sympathy of 89 % of the world, Osama would be sitting in a dungeon somewhere, rather than the free man that he is, laughing at the Americans falling all over themselves expending their empire resources on idiocy all the while recruiting for Al Queda as never before, except in Iraq.
Oh, by the way, my father who died in 2002 was a decorated WWII captain who said exactly what I just said about the police action before his death.
"Are you saying there shouldn't have been any military response to 9-11?"
Yes, I certainly said that repeatedly, starting the morning of September 12, 2001. International police work, using small, well trained, international forces as needed to apprehend the suspects; fine. But invading a whole country in response to the crimes of Sept 11 was preposterous. When Tim McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City did we call airstrikes on Buffalo?
A documented by RAWA, the Taliban are certainly an unsavory lot, but they were an improvement over the vicious warlord-state that preceded them. Imposing liberal democracy with the barrel of a gun doesn't work.
Did you formerly post here with the nickname Joe Hope?
So, the Taliban is an improvement over the warlords but Obama is not an improvement over Bush?
Wow! Just wow.
Are you having trouble with your neurons firing today?
That's exactly right. The Taliban is a political body that has large support in Afghanistan. Who the hell are we to be putting thugs and weaponry and assassins in there saying the Afghan people don't have the right to self-determination?
And we're getting our asses kicked by the Taliban, which is a good thing, frankly. Opposition to what we are doing over there is growing in Amerikka, and now more than 50% of the U.S. are against our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, the administration continues to ramp up aggression and violence over there.
I don't necessarily agree with everything the Taliban stands for, but what I do support are groups who fight U.S. imperialism. That includes the Taliban, Hamas, the IRA, the RAF, and others. Right now Afghanistan doesn't have a working class people's movement fighting off U.S. thuggery and violence over there, and the Taliban rose to fill the vacuum. That's the best they can do at this moment given their material conditions and their history.
I can't speak for the above poster, but I myself do support the Taliban. And I don't support our troops.
And no, Obama is not "better" than Bush.
"Yes, I certainly said that repeatedly, starting the morning of September 12, 2001. International police work, using small, well trained, international forces as needed to apprehend the suspects; fine. But invading a whole country in response to the crimes of Sept 11 was preposterous. When Tim McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City did we call airstrikes on Buffalo?" -- pjd412
I argued the same thing with many of my friends!
A couple of things worth noting:
1. You sure do make a lot of apologies for this administration. What makes you feel compelled to do so. Doesn't that set off alarm bells in your own mind?
2. By conservative estimates, 80,000 INNOCENT people were slaughtered in Iraq. Now we turn our sights on Afghanistan. I have to watch predator drones slaughter people in a hail of bombs and 50mm gun fire on YouTube. I have to watch Air Force TV ads telling me how great it is to be a predator drone pilot and the power one gets from wielding that joystick. I sense you are in complete denial about what is going on in this country. I think you fail to appreciate the power of the military industrial complex.
When you watch the government hand over a trillion dollar bailout to banks and insurance companies, when you watch corporations and big money interests buy off every politician in DC, when you realize we export more arms than all other countries combined, there really is need to be concerned. We now have a population that produces very little and I think many Americans are starting to realize that they just might lose the sweat shop labor made shirt they have on their back.
Corporate fascism is the melding of government and corporation. Anyone who denies that we are living under corporate fascist rule today is delusional. We are now led by men who lust wealth and power. The result is apparent. From mercenary forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the sweat shops in Asia, it is obvious what America stands for today. Hitler provided a steady stream of slave labor to German corporations. Prescott Bush did much business with the Nazis. Comparisons to Nazi Germany can easily be made. In fact, if Americans don't take back America soon, I suspect we will make Nazi Germany look like a walk in the park.
2. By conservative estimates, 80,000 INNOCENT people were slaughtered in Iraq.
80,000 ???