Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Are You and What Have You Done With the Community Organizer We Elected President?
What's up with Barack Obama? The candidate for change once promised to take on the powerful banking interests but is now doing their bidding. Finally, a leading Democrat, in this case Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, has a good idea for monitoring the Wall Street fat cats who all but destroyed the American economy, and the Obama administration condemns it.
Dodd wants to take supervisory power from the Federal Reserve, which is controlled by the banks it pretends to monitor, and put it in the hands of a new independent agency. That makes sense given the Fed's abject failure to properly monitor the financial sector over the past decade as that industry got drunk on greed. As Dodd's spokeswoman Kirstin Brost put it: "The Federal Reserve flat out failed at supervising the largest, most complex firms." But White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee frets that taking power from the Fed would cause financial industry "nervousness." Isn't that the whole point of government regulation-to make the bandits look over their shoulders before they launch their next destructive scam?
Not so in the view of Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, who blithely insists that the Fed "is the best agency equipped for the task of supervising the largest, most complex firms," despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. There is some irony in the fact that the largest of those complex firms got to be "too big to fail" because of the radical deregulatory legislation that Wolin drafted during his previous incarnation as the Treasury Department's general counsel in the Clinton administration. Wolin is now deputy to Timothy Geithner, who as head of the New York Fed in the five years preceding the banking meltdown looked the other way as the disaster began to unfold.
Why is Barack Obama allowing these retreads from the Clinton era who went on to great riches on Wall Street to set economic policy for his administration? The fatal hallmark of this president's financial policy is that it is being designed by the very people whose previous legislative efforts created the mess that enriched them while impoverishing the nation, and they now want more of the same.
In the Clinton years, Wolin was general counsel to then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, the key architect of the radical deregulation that caused the recent banking collapse. Summers went off to work for hedge funds and banks that paid him $15 million in 2008 while he was advising Obama. Meanwhile, Wolin became general counsel for Hartford Insurance Corp., which had to be bailed out by the taxpayers because it took advantage of the radical deregulation that he helped write into law.
Wolin, Geithner and Summers were all protégés of Robert Rubin, who, as Clinton's treasury secretary, was the grand author of the strategy of freeing Wall Street firms from their Depression-era constraints. It was Wolin who, at Rubin's behest, became a key force in drafting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which ended the barrier between investment and commercial banks and insurance companies, thus permitting the new financial behemoths to become too big to fail. Two stunning examples of such giants that had to be rescued with public funds are Citigroup bank, where Rubin went to "earn" $120 million after leaving the Clinton White House, and the Hartford Insurance Co., where Wolin landed after he left Treasury.
Both Citigroup and Hartford would not have gotten into trouble were it not for the enabling legislation that the three Clinton officials pushed through while they were in power. But even with that law, had Geithner been on the case protecting the public interest while head of the New York Fed much of the damage could have been avoided.
Thanks to the legislation that Wolin helped write, the limits preventing mergers between insurance companies and banks imposed during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency was reversed. Hartford got into banking, and as The Washington Times observed in a scathing editorial, "Hartford ... rushed to buy regulated savings and loans just so they could call themselves banks and qualify for government TARP funds." Wolin collected his millions while the taxpayers were obliged to cover Hartford's losses.
It is depressing for a columnist who had great hopes for Obama to be forced by the facts to credit editors at the right-wing Washington Times for getting it right when they opined: "Revolving doors between industry and the administration and fat-cat political contributors getting bailed out at taxpayer expense sound like business as usual. This certainly isn't change we can believe in." Please, Mr. President, say it ain't so.
- Posted in
162 Comments so far
Show AllIt's simple. Obama has two constituencies, Those that voted for him and those that paid for his campaign. The interests of these two groups couldn't be more divergent. Obama has chosen to attend to the interests of the latter constituency at the expense of the former. Had Mr. Scheer looked at Obama's voting record as a U.S. Senator? Or did he just listen to the lofty rhetoric without attention to the facts?
Asolutely!!!
And how naive. Why is it that a caucasian (sorry, but i am being blunt), male, politician would be seen as 'a typical politician'? Ie...they never keep their campaign promises, etc....Business as usual. You know how they lie to get elected?
No one would be so shocked. But because the party was clever enough to create a candidate who just , literally, looks a little different, all of the so called liberals (not leftists), believed he was an entirely different kind of human being.
Did it not occur to these people, including the author, that this was part of the ploy, to co-opt the dismal excuse for a peace and justice movement that i personally had been involved with? "Change You Can Believe In".
Did that slogan not sound Orwellian to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to 'think'? I think this is an example of Americans getting punked by their own politically correctly disguised racism. Pure and simple.
Obama. "Gee. He had an African father. He will certainly be a very different kind of president." All who were mindless enough to vote for the man whose skin was a different color from the past political operatives.....And therefore thought that American politics was going to transform itself. Because we are so open minded as to believe a bi-racial man could be president, and also a non politician....
Well. What can i say? That's america for you!!!
Typical of the U.S. is that the "change" that happened was merely cosmetic, as in when policy is subject to a "change of course" when the public begins to grumble about the effects of whatever policy is in question. We are then directed to "look ahead" to a glorious future when nothing of substance has been changed at all. Come to think of it, what candidate doesn't represent change? How many pols run on a platform of "Everything Is Fantastic - Let's Keep The Status Quo Exactly As Is"?
He's black and a community organizer! Cool man! He looks and talks like Malcolm X! Really cool man! He's hip, he's cool, he's black! I mean hey! He's cooool!
Laugh out loud.
Malcolm X would heap scorn on this man.
Yep - and with a soft voice and a devilish smile. He was something.
Joe
Man, the script changes for the apologetic wing of Dem party twits. Just over a year ago this nit wit was trashing thrid party voters and now singing our tune. Your credibility is already shot with the authentic left.
Listen to Robert Scheer in a debate (2007) with Ralph Nader. I admire Nader for his ability to put up with Scheer's lack of critical perspective on the nature of the two corporate parties. Nader asked, essentially: What is it you are actually going to do to demand that the Democrats fight for our democracy, rather than give it away to the highest bidder? Scheer couldn't answer. He seemed to think that begging and complaining constitutes demand. Keep voting for them, no matter what and then complain later! He seemed unable to understand the physics of that strategy. How's that strategy working for you, Mr. Scheer?
http://www.truthdig.com/podcast/item/20071009_robert_scheer_debates_ralph_nader/
Hi Rvrwalker,
You're right, of course, about Mr. Scheer, and all the other liberals & leftists who accepted Obama in the election. Now what?
Do you intend to beat them over the head with your superior judgement and purity, or do you intend to invite them into a new opposition coalition?
Just once, do you think that the left can elevate openness over smugness? Or do you for us intend to remain an impotent minority forever?
Just wondering,
Laurence
It's good that Obama showed his real colors so soon. Now we know to totally ignore any future promises he makes and immediately begin to push for CHANGES THAT WE DEMAND!!!!
BE PREPARED!
Sometime before the next election, the "Obamateam" will throw a few little bones or at least fake it. Today's sad progressives will dry their guileless eyes, blow their noses, and jump, once again, onto Obama's hayride to hell.
I can't forget last year when that happened. 2008 was the most depressing election in my entire life. For the first time, it was totally obvious that neither the Republicans nor Democrats sided with Main Street and yet the cornfed electorate picked between Obama and Mccain. I know some voted shamelessly for Obama or Mccain while others voted for one of those two out of fear. Yes, it is hard to know who to trust to be on our side. :(
I share your disappointment, Jennifer. Yes it was obvious that something was up. No real debate regarding the Democratic candidate. We were given Obama or Hillary and I don't think she would be any better, perhaps a lot worse of a corporate suck up.
Our hope is in finding and electing representatives of people rather than corporations. The corporate strategy has been divide and conquer. Find and exploit wedge issues: gun control, abortion, immigration. If we are to reclaim government for people we must bridge those issues. The gun people need to be reassured their guns are safe. Anti-abortion people will not be required to have abortions, but they can't shoot their pregnant teens either. Issue employment and residency permits to all non-citizens and collect taxes from them. Let them work at 50% minimum wage. I really need some help with the yard work and gutters and I could let a family live in the Airstream.
Seriously, perhaps we could have fire station and church dinner based dialogue for peace making. In some common meeting places, we could found some coop health clinics, legal aid clinics for the foreclosed, and job search support groups. The right wingers are actually living in fear fomented by the corporations. The corporate CEOs and top dog vampires fear a united and informed democracy because people could tax away their bonuses.
Reading several blogs this morning I am struck with the utter passivity of the populace. Looking to Obama, who won the Clio for the best advertising campaign of 2008 and is now positioning himself for a big job post presidency at Goldman Sachs, for leadership is truly a fools errand. Looking, looking always for another daddy figure to lead us is the same thing.
Only when the people organize themselves will anything change. Hasn't anybody read history. Anybody elected in our money system of elections will reflect the monied interests. It is so obvious. We need to do the hard work of on the ground, face to face organizing. The blogs have analyzed to death all the nuances of power and its pitfalls but done little to create a movement. Same thing for women for reproductive rights; relying on the Democrats to protect your rights is like relying on that battering husband to come around because he says he's so sorry now, Wake up the only chance we have is to organize an actual movement. The teabaggers are just a small stupid group but their boldness has made them influential. I realize the media and the police will be much harder on a similar progressive movement but it is still the only chance. Roe v. Wade didn't give us reprroductive rights, the women's movement gave us Roe v. Wade. Power never concedes anything.
Our entire media is devoted to the story of the actors in a political drama and whose career is going where. The people are entirely left out of this. Too many blogs think that breaking down how stupid Sarah Pallin or Glen Beck are is some kind of education for change. Everybody who can think knows how dumb they are. Why doesn't the left manage to get people as motivated is really the question. Waiting for the silver fork tongued Obama just sidetracks people from doing their own community organizing.
If you continue down this path of absurdly asserting things like Obama is positioning himself for a job at Goldman Sachs, you will wake up one morning to find Mitch McConnell president, or much worse.
At least with Mitch McConnell we wouldn't be bullied to believe he was anything other than what he is.
The danger with Obama and he can talk a good game and posture as something other than what he is and despite the growing body of evidence some will be dredging up the same hollow excuses and apologies giving him a pass while the rug is being pulled out.
Exactly. It's much better for the town to know there really is a dangerous and ravenous wolf around than to think the wolf is really a relatively tame dog who would never attack one of the children. Everyone would know that Mitch McConnell is a wolf, including Mitch McConnell, laugh out loud. Whereas there are many millions who do not understand that Obama is a wolf, also.
The boy who cried "ravenous wolf!"
That's how you want to characterize Obama?
We'll be curious to know what you'll say when real ravenous wolves are at your door
I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm in a writing mood, so...
About the only reason I am participating and trying to help the non-right wing with my writing and research is that, roughly speaking, the ravenous wolves are at my door already. If I need an old fashioned job, I most likely can't get one now given the economic disaster. I can't get health care at a reasonable price. I can't do much of anything without being subject to being tricked and scammed down the river by some corporate trick. And so on and so forth.
Society has more or less collapsed and the wolves are at or at least very close to the door, my friend.
It's not at all about "crying wolf". Obama is actually a right-wing wolf, there is absolutely no exaggeration in that and there is absolutely no doubt about that. So no one on this site is crying anything that isn't true.
The country would be essentially in the exact same condition now and in the next 5-20 years if Mitch McConnell were the President. True, there would be some minor differences. For example, some teachers, some firefighters, and possibly even some police officers would be unemployed if Mitch were President, but there would be roughly an equal number of corporate employees, together with a small number of small business owners and employees, who would still be employed if Mitch McConnell were President, who have already or will soon lose their jobs, with no chance of re-employment, under the minute details of Obama's measures.
The question of Mitch McConnell versus Barack Obama really amounts to where you want to place the deck chairs on the Titanic, and, at this point in the collapse of the economy, who exactly gets on what life boat.
But as I said, everyone would know that Mitch McConnell represents the wealthy and elitists, and so everyone who is not a right winger would be arranging their own affairs as best as they could to minimize the negative effects to themselves of Mitch McConnell being the President. Whereas now, there are many millions who have been fooled and who are not being as careful to avoid societal traps and scams as they would be if Mitch McConnell were president.
For example, the average opinion (on sites other than Common Dreams, where very few are fooled) about Obama's mandate to buy grossly overpriced health insurance is characterized by annoyance and dismay, whereas if the mandate came down from Mitch McConnell, there would be many more people serious about avoiding it so as to avoid eventual economic disaster to themselves resulting from huge payments for health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.
I mean, with Bush, eventually the military was having difficulty recruiting for Iraq, and eventually, many people learned their lesson about not automatically trusting contracts that seem too good to be true, such as sub-prime mortgage contracts with interest rate kickers. There are people alive right now who would have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were it not for the backlash against Bush. There are people who would have been bankrupt and/or living under a bridge were it not for becoming, as a result of the backlash against Bush, very cautious about signing right wing contracts.
But with Obama, too many have gone back to not being careful and defensive about right wing policies and contracts. So Obama has not only followed most of Bush’s policies, he has actually infused them with a big shot in the arm due to there being little backlash against himself, because most do not see Obama as a wolf.
You get the wolf thing now? I hope so, because that is all I’m going to do to get you to get it.
So, it's all about comparison is it? I suppose you don't know that this is an ancient psy-op technique, to design a conversation where one side goes way over the top so that the other side will look more reasonable? When the "good" side wins, the empire is able to take it even further than the other side could have because most people won't come around to the truth for years. Now you know why the Democrats have been moving steadily to the right for decades. Too bad there are so many naive people such as yourself who fall for it. We're kind of smart here on CD, so this comment of yours will be seen for what it is. Either dishonest or naive.
The parties play this game together, they collude. Study up, sunny boy. You have a lot to learn about human nature.
If you're very young, I can understand. We adults try to keep from you the really hard truths.
Interesting that you make my point. In all that I said what you focus on is Obama and a perhaps over the top remark about him. But given what he's done so far for Wall St. vs Main St. maybe not. A focus on celebrity and leaders who aren't leading is my complaint here.
Good comment! It reminded me that whenever an article criticizes Obama, it is a great platform for piling on more hysterical attacks, which helps shameless progressives understand that it wouldn't be so bad if Mitch McConnell was president, so vote third party! :]
artemix sez: "...Obama, who ... is now positioning himself for a big job post presidency at Goldman Sachs ..."
***
Actually, he's already on the job.
"on the ground, face to face organizing" -artemix
.
Here is a suggestion. Join the movement for free public transit. Think about it a little first, it is not intuitive. You can read up on it here: http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
That's right artemix, COMMUNITY ORGANIZING IS THE KEY. AND LABOR ORGANIZING.
You can't start a new MASS political party or political movement unless millions of people are marching and organizing for justice. People don't LIVE in political parties. They live in neighborhoods, jobs, schools and churches.
We are going to have to learn how to build a mass movement. But one thing is for sure. If we can't resist the temptation to insult the people who haven't yet woken up, it won't happen. We are going to need a lot of ex Democrats in our movement. So let's concentrate on what we can do BETTER.
And by the way, the Tea Baggers have shown us a valuable lesson in Upstate New York. When the nominated Republican wasn't to their liking, they used an existing third party to run against her, even if it meant losing. It's called an inside - outside strategy. We can do that.
Changes you demand from the New World Order controlled political parties of your Nation when they offer you the next round of made for Tv candidates they have manufactured for your entertainment?
You still believe the illusion there are Nations where there are merely Banks & Corporations that control made for Tv & photo ops politicians of Nations. Did you even pay attention to how many Politicians from various Nations called for the NWO during your last leaders years in office?
There is only the illusion in your minds that someplace called America exists. The founders of your Nation created the illusion for you. The fairy tale for you to believe in when they were secretly building the NWO from the beginning.
ShadowDancer November 18th, 2009 9:43 am - "fairy tale for you to believe in..." It was "The Roman Slave Republic" here from Day 1 and the NWO is merely a return to the feudalistic Slave Plantation model that has been the greatest source of wealth accumulation for the monsters since before the Julii Caesares of Rome. They never forgot, my white American cousins did - unless of course, slavery is in their blood and Freedom is actually a terrifying disease to them. After all, white America has always wanted their country to be based on Exclusion. What is more "Exclusionary" than forced human labor? Abused children always engage in magical thinking and fairy tales are what they use to make their hell on earth tolerable. If you take away their fairy tales, they'll kill you for it. They need them.
Its damn scary. America IS an illusion. If Washington disappeared overnight, they wouldn't miss a beat. I can only imagine the backup (war, political & commerce) operational centers they have in place around the world. For all intents and purposes, the physical American state is probably meaningless to them at this point.
They roam the planet at will.
What's sad is that a literate adult could still express sincere surprise.
I agree, but you are being too kind
Simply put Obama is a corporate scam. Obama the community organizer. That term is getting old. So what? It makes him sound like he's a man of the people. He's not a man of the people, he never was. He was handpicked by his corporate handlers and strategically sprung on the American people in 2004 with a fancy speech and juxtaposed against Dubya, the people were spellbound.
And readytotransform is right. The color issue is a big thing. Do you think if Obama was white there would still be so many besotted Obamabots around? Don't you think more people would be questioning him instead of worshiping him, after all that has gone on, thus far, and considering the big mess we're in as a result of not questioning enough Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton? The only difference between Obama and these Presidents is his skin color. He is definitely being given a pass for that reason, and that is, pure and simple racism. And I'll bet you his corporate handlers knew that this would be the case.
This is a touchy subject, but I largely agree. It's partially liberal white guilt, but it's also the fact he inspired minorities to come out and vote who often didn't before. Given he has done little to nothing to help minorities, I am doubtful that unique support is going to materialize the next election unless he does some last minute pandering. The fact he's a non-white president does not excuse the fact he's continuing the status quo. White liberals may still idolize him, you know since he's a well spoken, intelligent, friendly, not-too-black guy who is just black enough without being scary. Because he's not inner city black, not outspoken about racial issues, he can be admired and praised.
"Given he has done little to nothing to help minorities, I am doubtful that unique support is going to materialize the next election unless he does some last minute pandering."
Don't be so sure. I interact with black folks at work, on the bus, in my neighborhood and I've heard not one negative word about President Obama. I think it's fair to say that Obama will have overwhelming support (again) from the black community in 2012 if only because so many rednecks positively hate him.
Obama will keep the black vote for the same reason Bush kept the rednecks. They'll circle the wagons for their man no mattter how bad he is. The question is: how much of the non-black vote will he keep?
Obama will inevitably lose some amount of black support in 2012 compared with 2008; exactly how much is uncertain because there has most likely never been a combination of circumstances like these twisted circustances in world history.
But the number of black people actually validly registered and eligible to vote in 2012 as compared to 2008 will almost certainly be much less. The true, full black unemployment rate is approaching 40% and even black people can only go so long without income from employment before they either drop dead or become economic refugees with no fixed address and thus no good way to get registered to vote.
I think he will lose a great deal of young voters, black and white, because of his betrayal. They won't trust anyone in '12.
I think he already has if this year's gubernatorial results in NJ and VA are any indicator. There is more to come next year and 2012. I can't forget that day when seniors and veterans were having long lines at the polling booths while very few young and minority voters showed up. That was already an omen that Deeds was up in smoke. It's hard to even believe that just last year, Hampton Roads was swing territory for turning VA blue. Now, even northern VA is going back to red pre 2004 ! Normally, VA and NJ vote for the opposite party than the one in the White House but this time, the margins were bigger in both states.
Possible -- but 2012 is a ways off, and the reverberations that I too feel from black folks can eventually fade when the huge weight of the Deep Recession come home in ways too awful to be ignored.
White racist-baiting sure does help, like you say, to keep blacks closing ranks. For awhile more at least.
I admire his acting talents. Ladies and gents: Best actor award of 2008, as 'progresssive-leaning' Obama."
Sure, I despised the cheney administration, but didn't vote for this guy because I watched him vote for every rotten rights destroying bill, every rotten corporate travesty, and all the rotten war funding. He never spoke of peace, just pawn redistribution. Obama is just another in the long line of corporate controlled smiling puppets.
At this point in time, how can anyone back either of those parties?
Lick your wounds
Learn from the mistakes
Change means moving in a different direction
Community organizer is just a simple facade. Let's say I am Satan and I want to win office. I can wear a Texas cowboy mask or a community organizer mask, win office with a lot of hidden cash, and then go to bed with the lobbyists and gleefully get out of touch with the public and safely put the mask away until next election. Essentially, who you were prior to running for president is void once you are in office. The trick to Obama winning is keeping that mask secure and enhancing it. I think the GOP has already taken his mask and found a way to tailor their own counter mask to run another phony culture populism campaign.
Despite what people say, Obama has brought about real change.
Prior to the election, he was a powerful political force that could win elections and drive the republicans from power and into a political wilderness. In just one year, he has changed the republicans into an optimistic party that is drooling over their chances in 2012.
In the last year, he has changed from someone who was going to confront what is wrong in our society into an impotent weakling who is an obedient servant to wall street.
In just one year he changed from a peacemaker who would not engage in "dumb wars" (whatever that meant) into a corporate warmonger that is leading us into a new Vietnam.
In just one year, he changed himself from a political tiger with a probable eight year reign into a new Jimmy Carter who will be spending 2013 in Chicago writing his memoirs.
So never say he isn't an agent for change. Change is what he's all about.
Ouch -- for being so on target!
Amazing how quickly Mr. Obama has flushed away all the political capital he had.
Here's a note for all:
I lived in Iowa during the primaries, you know, the one that proved that the whitest state in the Union could elected someone with some African descent in them.
Then, even trying to put himself forward as the peace candidate against "I know all about the Army" Hillary, he repeatedly and outspokenly said that "we need to increase the Defense budget."
What have we done with the man who promised to further engorge the military-industrial complex? simple: elected him Commander in Chief.
The author plaintively asks, 'What's up with Barack Obama?'
Bob. May I call you Bob? I share your frustration about Obama, in particular with respect to his dealings with the financial sector.
To understanstand Obama, one has to go back to his youth. Read his book 'Dreams of my father' carefully again, and you are transported into the tormented world of a young Obama, with an absent yet demanding father who abandoned him and his mother to vie for prominence in Kenyan politics. That painful sacrifice might have been acceptable had his father succeeded in politics. But, and this is the crucial lesson of his father's life for Obama, he was driven to destitution because he dared to buck the preeminent power in the country - Kenyatta himself.
Fast forward to 2009 USA. The now President Obama grew up constitutionally incapable of bucking the powers that be, to risk walking in his father's shoes, to be driven from power and to fail. And in the US, the preeminent powers are the Wall Street titans and other elites, who Obama knows to be every bit as vengeful as Kenyatta of Kenya was.
I don't know if anyone as sensitive and introspective as Obama is capable of reconciling with memories of a father who fluttered into and out of his youth, and who is now long gone but hardly forgotten. For our sake, I hope he does, and soon.
And, If you read: "The Audacity of Hope", Obama writes, approximately quoted:
"Dreams of complete equality are intoxicating but dangerous - for if one doesn't know their proper place by birth or rank, how can society cohere?"
No, I'm not making this up or taking it out of context.
And what's so interesting about that quote, P, is that Hitler made a very similar observation:
"Was für ein Glück für die Regierenden, daß die Menschen nicht denken. Denken gibt es nur in der Erteilung oder im Vollzug eines Befehls. Wäre es anders, so könnte die menschliche Gesellschaft nicht bestehen."
(What a lucky thing for rulers, that people don't think for themselves. Thinking occurs only when permitted, or in the execution of a command. Were it otherwise, the human social order could not endure.")
I suspect that tendency has something to do with necessity for survival in our human past, as it is likely that usually only an individual or a few individuals made the important group decisions for groups of human hunter-gatherers over the millennia and the other members of the group, feeling inferior to the decision-makers, were, possibly in some innate manner, inhibited from engaging in independent thinking and fighting over the decision (especially since "fighting" in such environments would often involve violence and could harm the group). This was not so dangerous for the non-leaders because in small groups, with members having likely close familial relations with each other and at the least familiarity, the abuse of the powerful, the decision-makers, of the weak was to some degree naturally limited. In large groups where most are strangers to each other the potential abuse is virtually unlimited unless there are in place some structures, such as effective and enforced laws and legal processes, to limit it.
That sounds right. It fits with the change from "big person" societies to feudalism. What were once close kinship relations that prevented exploitation became, under feudalism, flipped so that the leader no longer owed a duty to the group, the group now owed duty to the ruler. It was a very toxic change, and might have coincided with the spread of Indo-European patriarchy since "big person" societies persisted elsewhere until the coming of Europeans.
That is one interpretation.
Me, I was just thinking that Obama is a classic 18-19th century Hamiltonian (the US "founding father")- only rich elites should be in charge of the deliberative process. It also has a bit of a medieval feudalist - "accept your lot in life" feel to it.