EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Daley is a Reflection, Not a Cause
Few things interest me less at this point than royal court personnel changes. I actually agree with the pro-Obama/Democratic-Party-loyal commentators who insist it doesn't much matter who becomes White House Chief of Staff because it's Obama who drives administration policy. Obama didn't do what he did in the first two years because Rahm Emanuel was his Chief of Staff. That view has the causation reversed: he chose Emanuel for that position because that's who Obama is. Similarly, installing JP Morgan's Midwest Chairman, a Boeing director, and a long-time corporatist -- Bill Daley -- as a powerful underling replacing Emanuel isn't going to substantively change anything Obama does. It's just another reflection of the Obama presidency, its priorities and concerns, and its overarching allegiances.
There's a section of my forthcoming book about the rule of law which examines the direct causal line between the vast number of Wall Street officials in key administration positions and the full-scale exemption from accountability which financial elites enjoy even for the most egregious lawbreaking. When you compile all of those appointments in one place, the absolute stranglehold large-scale corporate interests exert over virtually all realms of government policy is quite striking. But it's nothing more than what the economist Nouriel Roubini meant when he told the makers of the 2010 documentary "Inside Job" that Wall Street has "captured the political system" on "the Democratic and the Republican side" alike, or what Simon Johnson describes as "The Quiet Coup": "The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against" elite business interests.
Shipping in a JP Morgan executive to be White House Chief of Staff isn't a cause of any of this; it's just a nice symbol for what our political culture is, more than ever in the Era of Change. It's the other side of the revolving door that sent Peter Orszag to his multi-million-dollar a year reward at Citigroup for his 18 months in an administration which lavished that bank will all sorts of gifts. Getting exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to the beach and being angry that it's full of sand: this appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of Washington and of the Obama presidency. It's what they do and who they are. As Matt Stoller suggested, the most surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no Goldman Sachs experience.
Read the full article at Salon...
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
127 Comments so far
Show AllThanks, Siouxrose. The same applies to many of your incisive characterizations. GG's article has inspired me with hope that he and other Democrats of his persuasion may finally be awakening to the systemic nature of the oppressive system we confront and may be willing soon to jump from the rotting hulk of the Democratic Party and help form a new political movement that would embody truly progressive values. The elements are all there, but only the spark of action is lacking.
The critics perform a valuable and essential role, but are unlikely to be starting any movements - or worse yet political parties - nor should we ask that of them.
"Values" and "sparks" are ideas I would question. Organization is what is needed. It is only in retrospect, once the history is in the hands of ruling class apologists, that the ideas of sparks and values and celebrity leaders come into play. That is often a way of neutralizing and white-washing the history, and also of skewing people's views so that they cannot accurately perceive what is needed. They are led to think that they need a spark, or a great leader, or that political movements are expressions of "values."
For example, the so-called "Boston Tea Party" (even the name is a made up ruling class idea 40 years after the fact to gentrify and neuter the action and render it weak) was not a "spark" it was an expression of resistance by an organization. Likewise, the opportunists, the wealthy and the land and money grabbers known as the "founding fathers" did not "lead" the Revolution, they scrambled to get in front of the parade that had already formed and then did everything they could to suppress it once the British were gone and they were in power. They immediately set about re-writing the history, making it about "great men" with "great ideas" (themselves), while impoverishing and marginalizing the working people who made the Revolution happen and succeed. They even prevented the public reading of the Declaration of Independence itself, so that the "rabble" would not get any ideas.
Yes, and here is the mechanism by which people internalize corporate interests: they accept the assumption that those who have more money therefore have a "right" to more freedom, more power, a "right" to control those with less money. This assumption operates at all levels of society, and even in the local neighborhood the person with more money than his neighbor thereby has more power, and therefore to one extent or another control over his neighbor. This permeates all of our social relations - controls them, and through them controls us.
Excellent post indeed Boyd R. And these mechanisms when focused upon as if they are factors outside of the average workers or progressive persons reality put upon us the daunting task of changing others, others much more powerful than us. But when these factors we abhor such as corporatism are realized as inherant factors of the average workers personal reality of the average human being, the common mans cross to bear, the duty then is to stop a factor that works upon and within us all. The sober realization that it is us, that we are the cause and the conclusion which inevitabley follows,that finally frees us all from the prison of blame; we, anyone of us, may stop being incorporated. But we are all still generally lovers of the incorporated reality, it has not betrayed us enough for us to want to change.
I hope that the betrayals don't have to get too bad this time around. This time around.
Thanks, Leea. I think you have a good insight here. Our work is not primarily to persuade others to think like we do, but to change ourselves so that we break the lock of internalized corporate control over ourselves. However, and I'm sure some other voices will reinforce this point - it's not all up to us personally. There are certain chains that are social and collective and it is an illusion to think that we as individuals can break them. They can only be broken by organized activity of the collective. Speaking personally, the corporate reality has definitely betrayed me enough to want to change it, but I don't really put it in those terms. Corporate reality confronts me as an impersonal force that seeks to dehumanize me, to extract all the labor it possibly can from me, then discard me when I'm used up. That's the beast that must be fought.
No, you are correct the common or collected and ordered change to the system is the only way the system will change. But can I as an agent towards that do anymore than change myself and then look for others who are also working toward that same end to work with? Gathering together in strength of unified systemic change is the vehicle. But so far I find only a handful of collected forces smattered here and there. A beginnning? I think so, and only time will help to increase the numbers if all else prevails unchanged. Time for more and more to be aware and make a differnect choice for themselves that puts them with true change rather than alligned to status quo.
Thanks for the input.
A beginning? Yes.
We could do worse than to look back at the successful work by others -
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=108848
Excuse me, but I'm baffled. Boyd and TA and Leea (and Ted Larsen?) seem to feel they are singing the same song, but I can't quite make out the melody. I finally got what I think is a hint via TA's link. You want something like the civil rights movement centered around removing corporate power from our personal lives and government, is that it?
Just trying to understand.
Well saying we seem to feel we are singing the same song seems to indicate you feel a song is something that has different words for each person. Speaking for myself, I believe that songs when sung together always have the same words. If we were using the exact same words we would be singing together in a sense, that would mean we had reached some level of systemic understanding and agreement and that we were in harmony and then there would probably be melody too. When we are singing the same song, melody or not, you might be able to say we collectively understand something about this social dynamic we are appraising, but you seem to be way off the mark on this one, in all ways. When we are all singing the same song and it is a new song reflecting great social change for the better, good things will have truly come. Thanks for your comment, very refreshing to have feedback of such a nature. The ideas of songs as outcome is a very wonderful one indeed. :)
Not to be crude but I cannot help but saying this, I hope I don't lose the few fans I have. A whore once bought for service thinks little but preforming the job he/she was paid to do. If the case is that our government is a whore to the crony corporate man, I imagine the government players, top to bottom will be preforming as agreed when the money exchanged hands. I cannot myself imagine what this all would mean, but I can imagine I do not envy her/him or anyone their part in these big power plays. In this story I feel fortuanate in that I am just a small time fish bottom feeding from the crumbs that mistakenly fall from the tower of babel.
" There's a fundamental distinction between progressives and groups that wield actual power in Washington: namely, the latter are willing (by definition) to use their resources and energies to punish politicians who do not accommodate their views, while the former unconditionally support the Democratic Party and their leaders no matter what they do."
There it is. But there's a big problem with the definitions: are those automatic Democrats really progressives? Doesn't that have something to do with principles?
At this point, a lot of "progressives" face a crucial question: are you a progressive, or are you just a Democrat? Because you don't get to be both any more.
Well, being a Progressive and a Democrat was never synonymous. You can be a Progressive and vote Democrat. I mean, voting for Dennis K or Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold etc is keeping in line with progressive values.
As usual, it depends on where you live and what your choices are in the given election.
I still evaluate Obama in terms of whether he is moving the ball left, given the system he has to work with, and I conclude that he most definitely is. I expect him to move even more left once he is re-elected in 2012. He will not have to worry about re-election and therefore won't have to be as politically calculating. This is a guy who gave up what could have been a cushy job on Wall St in order to be a community organizer.
It's always baby steps in terms of change in the U.S. Stick with Obama.
My two cents.
"Being" something mean nothing. It is a deception. A politician can claim to "believe" this that or the other - to "share our values" - and everyone then says that he or she "is" something - a progressive, for example. That allows them to act in opposition to that - for the sake of "practicality" or "reality" they will say - and everyone gives them, a pass, so long as they still pay lip service to "our values."
It is what they do that matters, not what they "are."
Obama is not "moving the ball left" - whatever that means. Nonsense. He has moved to the right when there was no need to - repeatedly. "Given the system he has to work with" is also nonsense.
Change never happens in "baby steps." When people say change must happens slowly, what they really mean is they are happy if no change happens.
Babies take baby steps. People of courage and conviction take strides.
And Stokely Carmichael and others warned us about the dangers of a movement becoming dependent upon celebrity figures, and about the danger of the ruling class promoting "safe" figures and re-writing the history of the movement to neutralize it and rob it of any power.
Bingo!
Baby steps or strides is not the question at all with Obama. He is walking in the wrong direction when it comes to war, the economy and human rights.
Joe
Exactly right.
LMAO!